2017 AD 70 Debate - Night 1

[Music] before I begin I want to take just a moment to thank everyone for being here and I know that Don is going to take just a moment his beginning of his speech do the same thing I want to thank the gospel Broadcasting Network for being here in recording this debate and for those of you who have come a long distance to participate and I appreciate brother Steve Housley our preacher here at Eastern Meadows for delivering that opening prayer ladies and gentlemen as I begin I must point out the difference between Don and myself as it relates to our hermeneutical approach I tried to allow scripture to speak as it were and follow the texts lead I teach hermeneutics on the undergraduate level at Faulkner and try to stress to our students the importance of X to Jesus and not ice to Jesus now Dawn's approach is quite different in fact the best summary of his approach I believe is found in through the looking-glass by Lewis Carroll I believe you remember then Luke through the looking-glass Alice the protagonist meets Humpty Dumpty who is sitting on the proverbial wall and they engage in conversation and it becomes quite apparent that the conversation is getting nowhere fast because Humpty Dumpty is using words differently from what Alice is using and Humpty Dumpty gets so exasperated that he finally says when I choose the word it means when I choose it to mean nothing more and nothing less and I said that's it it's the Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic redefining words redefining phrases redefining entire passages of scripture to prove your preconceived notion of what the Bible supposedly says you're going to see that tonight and you will see it again tomorrow night when dawn gets up here to speak now the proposition tonight is the Bible teaches that the second final coming of Christ and the attendant resurrection of the just and the unjust is yet future and will occur at the end of time as the affirmative speaker it is my obligation to define the terms of the proposition by the word viable I mean sixty-six individual books thirty-nine Old Testament twenty-seven new Testament by the second final coming of Christ I mean that which is described in acts 1:11 and Hebrews 9:27 and twenty-eight by the resurrection of the just and the unjust I referred to the general raising of all individuals past and present who have died and by the phrase yet future the end of time I mean that which is described by Jesus as the last day in John 6 39 40 44 and 54 and John 12:48 to support the proposition as defined I submit to you the following the resurrection of the dead and the second coming of Jesus Christ the second coming of Jesus Christ is an event which occurs when Jesus Christ comes again literally visibly and personally just like he ascended into heaven acts 1 9 through 11 the general resurrection is an event which occurs during the second coming of Jesus Christ according to first Corinthians 15 23 through 28 therefore the general resurrection is an event which occurs when Jesus Christ comes again literally visibly and personally just as he ascended into heaven it is true that Jesus Christ has not come again literally visibly and personally as when he ascended into heaven and if it is true that at the general resurrection he is to return that way then it must be true that the general resurrection has not yet occurred but is still future it is true that Jesus Christ has not come again literally visibly and personally as when he ascended into heaven and it is true that at the general resurrection he is to return that way then it must be true that the general resurrection has not yet occurred but is still future if it is true that the general resurrection is a bodily resurrection and if it is true that the general resurrection has not yet occurred but it still future it must be the case that my proposition is true it is true that the general resurrection is a bodily resurrection and it is true that the general resurrection is not yet occurred but is still future then it must be the case that my proposition is true but to further support the proposition I submit also to you that Jesus will come upon the wicked unawares for you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night while people are saying there is peace and security then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman and they will not escape first thessalonians 5 2 and 3 for as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking marrying and giving in marriage until the day when noah entered the ark and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away so will be the coming of the Son of Man Matthew 24 38 39 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know Matthew 24 50 friends the day of the destruction of Jerusalem did not come upon the wicked Jews unawares consider that day did not come upon them as a thief in an hour they did not know for they knew a long time beforehand they were not saying peace and safety when sudden destruction came upon them for at that time they had internal wars and insurrections spreading devastation throughout the entire city neither were they at that time marrying and giving in marriage neither were they feasting when the Romans besieged the city starvation of wretchedness were of the hot were widespread the women of the highest rate satisfied their hunger on their own offspring this had little appearance of either a wedding or a feast Christ will convict the wicked at his second coming behold the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way and of all the harsh thing the ungodly sinners have spoken against in Jude 14 and 15 did Christ in the person of Titus convict all the ungodly Jews know for they fought till the very end none of them were convinced by the arguments made you solve on that occasion but consider also did hottest execute judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem for all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him how about the blaspheming infidels who now assert that the blood of Christ is no more efficacious and saving sinners than the blood of a dog was judgment executed upon them at the destruction of Jerusalem considered the Lord's Supper if the second coming of Christ has already occurred Don and his disciples should cease to eat the Lord's Supper for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes first Corinthians 11 26 if Christ came in AD 70 then why had communion now to consider also either Don and his disciples violate the word of God according to their teaching and take the supper or change its purpose for which they have no word from God or do away with the Lord's suffer all together now which will it be consider revelation 1:7 for a moment the hold is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him even those who pierced it and all tribes of the earth will wail because of it even so amen in Revelation 1:7 John uses the phrase path I highlight a state's Greek meaning all of the tribes of the earth as describing those who are mourn and beating their chests with sorrow at the coming of Christ that is contemplated in the text the basic form of that phrase appears several times in the set digit text the Greek text of the Old Testament in every case it refers to the nations of the earth and not just the tribes of Israel it is especially significant that the basic phrase is used in the sentence in Genesis 12:3 and Genesis 28 14 of the seed promise and the blessing of all the nations of the earth but clearly the text of Revelation 1:7 cannot be limited to the localized destruction of Jerusalem it entails an event of universal proportions involving all the nations tribes families the word through from the words delay of the earth the next phrase in that verse is quite interesting even those who pierced it pierced here is the eros form of the root word eken tail that word is used only one other time in the New Testament John 1937 where it talks about they pierce in same word now think about it couple that's what the primary force of the word hoorah Oh we'll see denoting literal sight as well as the sense of use of the word KY and the second clause to mean even those who pierced him implying their resurrection out of physical death not only does this support the idea that John wrote both books but it also reinforces the fact that what the Apostle described in Revelation 1:7 involves the very people who crucified Christ if not why not let's look at first Corinthians 3:11 through 15 for a moment for no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold silver precious stones wood hay straw each one's work will become manifest for that day will disclose it because it will be revealed by fire and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done if the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives he will receive a reward if anyone's work is burned up he will suffer loss though he himself will be saved but only as through fire question what is the day in verse 13 it certainly is not the destruction of Jerusalem did the fire that consumed Jerusalem reveal the work of every Christian that had been active up to that point to ask is to answer the question let's consider 1st Corinthians 15 24 through 28 then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power for he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet the last enemy to be destroyed is dead for God has put all things in subjection under his feet when it says all things are put in objection it is claimed that he is except didn't put all things in subjection under him when all things are subjected to him then the son himself will also be subjected to him and put all things in subjection under him that God may be all in all this takes place according to Paul at the end which is at the end of time not at 80 70 as dawn his disciples claim the earthly manifestation of the kingdom which is the church will then be delivered to God but now let's consider Luke 20 34 to 36 the children of this world marry and are given in marriage but they would shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage neither can they die anymore for there are equal ends of the angels and are the children of God being the children of the Resurrection twice here the Lord uses the word ion which is translated in the King James as world that disk contemplates heaven the ultimate state of the righteous is seen is that the reference to the children of this world must refer to the present time of the Earth's existence also it is the case that marrying and giving in marriage are still occurring well beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 even the advocates of realized eschatology are marrying and giving in marriage thus refuting their own doctrine the text also implies that the resurrection of which Jesus speaks is yet to occur notice also the text states neither can they die anymore if this text assumes a fulfillment in 8070 then it is the case that no one since ad 70 has ever died yet that's not so now wonder well Donna plays Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic to escape this dilemma but let's look at Matthew 13 47 through 50 again the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind when it was four men drew to shore and sat down and sort of the good into containers but throw away the bad so it will be at the end of the age the angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth did anything even akin to this happen at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 again who asked us to answer the question it is a resounding no could the godless armies of Titus be likened unto the angels of heaven in any shape form or fashion where was the fiery furnace located in Judea where all of this could have taken place but let's look at Hebrews 9:26 for then he who has had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world but as it is he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself if the phrase at the end of the ages always means at the end of the Jewish age then it must mean that in Hebrews 9:26 but the phrase at the end of the ages of Hebrews 9:26 does not mean at the end of the Jewish age Jesus appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself if the phrase at the end of the age means at the end of the Jewish age then Jesus made two sacrifices of himself for sin one at the cross and one at 80 70 but Jesus did not make two sacrifices of himself for sin the word hate passing this passage means once once for all time as it does in Jude verse three thus Jesus only made one sacrifice of himself for sin at the cross let dawn try to prove that Jesus actually sacrificed himself at the mercy of the Roman armies under Titus but also consider if the phrase at the end of the ages means at the end of Jewish age then Jesus did not sacrifice himself until Titus and his Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 but Jesus did not sacrifice himself when Titus and his Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem thus the phrase at the end of the ages does not mean at the end of the jewish age if dawn is correct and he's not then the cross is rendered meaningless but consider something else from a 2006 written debate that dawn had with larry bunch he made this statement quote the process and ground of taking away of sin undoubtedly began at the cross as Hebrews 9:26 affirms it was not perfected and completed there however in quotes who can believe this but each of us asked the other five written questions and we were each to give detailed answers biblical answers for the questions that were submitted and I want to show you just about two or three of these questions I submitted to Don and his responses question is it your conviction that the literal global flood of Genesis is the type of the localized destruction of Jerusalem seeing that it was used by Peter in the universal call to baptism first Peter 3:21 Gon's answer yes the flood was definitely a type of 8070 that's all he said no other biblical proof given no reasoning given just this assertion but why is the flood universal in time sent any times the antitype is always greater than the tide Clinton Lockhart and his book principles of interpretation pages 2 22 and 23 affirms this since dawn claims that the flood of Genesis 6 is a type of 8070 it stands to reason that he implies that the flood of Genesis 6 was a local not universal flood he is thus claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem was greater in destruction and scope than the flood of Genesis 6 further since the flood was used by Peter in a universal call for baptism in 321 then how in this world could God and his disciples affirm that a localized flood could be the type for a universal call for baptism I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh and the water shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh when the bow is in the clouds I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth God said to Noah this is the sign of the Covenant that I established between me and all flesh that is on the earth Genesis 9 15 through 17 four times in this passage God in the sizes that the flood affected all flesh every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth now who we believe we believed on or will we believe Moses the inspired lawgiver I think I'll stick with Moses but I want you to take a look at this book cover you probably can't read the title of it this is beyond creation science Donn endorsed this book in fact here's his endorsement sacred cows die hard yet this work by Martin and Vaughn has fired some heavy-duty shots at two sacred cows prophetic futurism and the global flood young earth view of Genesis he says further you will find that this book is logical scriptural and stimulating you'll also find much of what they say challenging perhaps disturbing you may well struggle with their conclusions but he says engage the struggle read this book in quote but what else does this book teach the author's claimed that Genesis chapters wanted to actually picture the establishment of the Jewish economy with Adam and Eve being poetic symbols than a temple motif in other words Genesis is a myth it's an allegory yet dawn says that the book is scriptural how in this world this is an insult to Moses according to Acts chapter 7 when Stephen preached before the Sanhedrin he declared that Moses was educated at all the wisdom of the Egyptians as we know Moses was being groomed to be a pharaoh he was intelligent enough even without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to express himself clearly in clear words and yet we are to believe that Moses whose inspired of the holy spirit could not express himself if he intended to say that the flood is not really a literal flood it's not really a global it is an allegory for the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 deliver me from such a thought let's look at another answer to my questions question was Jesus the Son of God spiritually separated from God when he died Dawn's answer yes brethren this takes my breath was Jesus out of fellowship with God to even suggest such a thing as blasphemous Jesus Christ did not die separated from the fellowship of the Father and the Holy Spirit in fact he prayed as he was dying father into thy hands I commend my spirit and then yielded up his spirit Luke 23 46 if it is true that Jesus was never out of fellowship with the father on the cross then it is true that by definition Jesus Christ did not die spiritually it is true that Jesus was never out of fellowship with the father on the cross it then is true that by definition Jesus Christ did not die spiritually throughout his time on the cross Jesus kept entrusting himself to him who judges righteously 1st Peter 2 21 through 24 dying on the cross was the Father's will Jesus learned obedience by the things which he suffered Hebrews 5:8 if this act was at the father's command and it was John 10:18 then how did Jesus commit any sin by going to the cross the very definition of spiritual death is separation from God so as to be out of fellowship with him the idea of the father the son and the holy spirit entails a separation of persons even though there is a unity of essence three persons yet one deity or Godhead being a distinct separate person does not imply spiritual death for any of the members of the government of the Godhead but the severance of fellowship does that's the key point in the definition have done and his disciples thought through the full implications of this particular nonsense think about it well don't agree with the following quote yes the Trinity was destroyed for three days that's how much God loves us that he would allow that to happen in clothes this implies that the God had ceased to exist for three days consider the thing or person being sacrificed is always for others and never for sale if that is true and Jesus died a sinner then he is still a sinner because no sacrifice was made on his behalf he could not be sacrificed for himself Jesus would have lied to the thief on the cross about being in paradise with him because a sinner separated from God would not be in Abraham's bosom but would be right beside the rich man in torment to die a spiritual death is to sin for the result of sin is spiritual death Romans 6:23 James 1:15 Ezekiel 18:20 the soul that sinneth it shall die how spiritually thus if Christ died spiritually the implication is he died in a sinful condition if not why not if Christ died in a sinful condition that is if he died spiritual death as a result he would have died eternally condemned this implies that God the Father planned for the son Christ to die in such a condition how blasphemous that is Don and his disciples are in now essence claiming that the father purposed Jesus sinning yet it was the will the Lord the Christian he has put him to grief when his soul makes an offering for guilt he shall see his offspring he shall prolong his days the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand isaiah 53:10 notice twice in one verse the Prophet declares that it was the will of the Lord that this would happen couple that with the fact that on two separate occasions God audibly declared he was well pleased with the son consider what Jesus himself said and he who sent me is with me he has not left me alone for I always do the things now are pleasing to him John 829 if Christ died a spiritual death out of fellowship with the father then whenever we take the Lord's Supper we are partaking in a meal that commemorates the of a sinner who can believe this certainly not me but consider one other answer to a question that I asked him question where the dietary laws of the law of Moses still binding upon the Jews after acts 10 his answer yes that's it no proof given no further statements given that's all he said but were the dietary laws of the Jews still binding consider the meeting at Jerusalem in acts 15 this meeting produced the first inspired letter that we have which is incorporated into the text of the book of Acts the Apostles and elders through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and this letter which was sent to the Gentile brethren in part it reads for as much as we have heard that certain which went out from us have trouble view with words subverting your souls saying you must be circumcised and keep the law to whom we gave no such commandment at 15:20 for it goes on to say for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you have seen from meats offered to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication from which if you keep yourselves you shall do well fare you well acts 15 28 and 29 consider also let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ Colossians 2:16 and 17 wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world why is the living in the world are you subject to ordinances touch not taste not handle not which are all to perish with using after the commandments and doctrines of men Colossians 2 20 through 22 does this sound like the law of Moses was still binding according Don it was in fact the court he had gone you have to priesthood that are approved by God from a t30 date he 70 the priesthood of Melchizedek Christ and the priesthood of Levi let him try to come up here and deny that he affirmed that to priesthoods were legitimate and were approved by God from a t30 dating 17 whereas we know that is simply not the case my friends you're going to hear done tonight and tomorrow night you're going to hear and say some very interesting statements I want you to listen carefully to Don's presentation you will detect a few things namely you will detect a lack of differences upon the basics of Christianity and you will also detect an obsession with 8070 it's already quite clear that Don his disciples evidence a lack of faith and the Genesis account of the flood that they believed Christ died spiritually that the law of Moses was binding for a past acts 10 not to mention past the cross this doctrine my friend that don pushes goes no further back than James Stewart Russell in 1878 and then CD beagle adopted what James Stuart Russell promoted in the early 1970s his son-in-law Max King picked up on it and tried to split the church with the doctrine the doctrine went dead for a long time until Don and his disciples revived it without being ironic about it but it goes no further back than to 1800s we're going to show that tonight tomorrow night that you cannot prove if your life depended on it that not only the first century church believed in this nonsense but that the second century and the third century and the fourth century church believe in all of this what a tangled web we weave indeed I want you to listen carefully however to what Don says consider it in light of the Word of God now he will be under obligation in the negative to respond to the arguments that I oppose and I certainly hope that he will do just that he'll have plenty of time to do that over the next two speeches to respond to the arguments and we're going to make sure that he does respond to these arguments if he doesn't do it in his first speech but I want you to listen with an open mind I want you to listen with an open Bible and I want you to weigh all of these things as of Rian's didn't act seventeen based upon the Word of God they were more noble than those in Thessalonica and that they search the Scriptures daily whether those things were so they received the word with all readiness of mind and they search the Scriptures daily they checked up on inspired men if these people checked up on inspired men then how much more are we obligated today to check up on uninspired preachers including myself if what I say goes against the scriptures reject it if it goes with the scriptures accept it not because I say it but because the Scriptures teach it and I'm sure Dodd has that same that same mindset I hope he does I think he does but the fact is we've got to weigh what we say and what we teach by what the Word of God says so as we draw this section this lesson this speech to a close I want you to consider everything's been said very carefully very carefully and see whether or not these things are so thank you very much well good evening everyone it is so good to see everyone here this evening I want to express my appreciation to the elders here at the Eastern Meadows Church of Christ for welcoming us for providing William and me a very very nice hotel room it's always good to see David again for us this is our second engagement and I just have to say hello to my wife back home she's she was 8 was not able to come and I would solicit your prayers on my wife's behalf she was recently diagnosed with breast cancer we are leaving next week for her to begin treatments of that diagnosis further diagnosis and what have you we are hopeful and prayerful to the Lord that it's been caught early and we don't know what we face but as I told her we will hold each other's hand and we will hold the hand of the Lord and whatever comes we will face it together so again keep that in your prayers thank you brother for being the moderator it's good to meet colonising Gayle for the first time it takes to face we've met one another on Facebook and exchanged some thoughts there but it's great to be with you this evening let me say before I get into it that I know how shocking my proposition is all right I was raised a fifth-generation member of the Churches of Christ so I know how strange it is to hear somebody like me stand in front of you like that but I assure you that as David suggested I have that one thing in mind and that's the truth that is my only desire in life and that's to know the Lord to be closer to him and to know his truth so I appreciate the olders here for opening up this venue I appreciate David for his courage to be willing to discuss these issues now David and I both get kinda excited that's our nature all right we don't mean anything personal by what we say so you need to know that with that said I've got a lot of ground to cover as David covered an awful lot of ground so let me let me get directly into my presentation I want to I want to address one of the things he said about type and data type and he quoted my answer to his question about was the flood was a universal flood a type of 8070 my answer to that was yes indeed and david cited the oft made argument that types go from last greater well i agree with that in principle but it doesn't mean that they go from less to greater in scope of occurrence it means they go from lesser to greater in significance and in meaning listen to me very carefully in Matthew 24:21 a text that David himself will admit and agree refers to the events leading up to and consummating in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 jesus said for then shall be Great Tribulation such as has never been since the beginning of the world nor ever yet shall be let me ask you a question was Jesus unaware of the flood and the scope of the flood how could Jesus say that the fall of Jerusalem would be the greatest tribulation that the world had ever seen since the world was created or that ever would be folks it's not the physical size of an event that determines its meaning or else we would have to say the death the burial and the resurrection of Jesus was less important than the fall of Jerusalem fewer people knew of the death the burial and the resurrection of Jesus when it happened that knew about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 now which was greater in scale which was greater in geography we know the answer to that so David are you going to tell us that because the death barrel reserve action of Jesus was smaller in scale than the fall of Jerusalem and the ad 66 to 74 are you going to get up here and tell us that Jesus's resurrection was less important folks let me reiterate geographical size does not determine meaning you know I learned that when I was growing up so what it sounds me when someone would get up and say its geographical size that truly matters no geographical size is not what matters now then I'm going to see if I can do this give me number 80 no I'm sorry that's that's where I need to be right there I'm trying you know I try to use these charts there are some things I don't want to share with you before I get into specifically answering many of David's arguments I want to I want to bring to your attention some critical facts that David admitted prior to our first debate all right these facts are critical for your understanding of where we're going to go in this discussion okay here we go prior to that first debate I asked David are your eschatological based upon taken from God's old covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel he said no well the tragedy here is ladies and gentlemen Paul said his hope of the resurrection was promoters the law and the prophets acts 24:14 in following acts 28 acts 26 so here is David who says his eschatology is not from the law not from the law of Moses but Paul said his eschatology is that is a fatal admission David is thereby saying he preaches an eschatology that is different from Paul's and Peter and James number two I asked him is the resurrection of the just and the unjust in Daniel chapter 12 verse 2 the same resurrection of the just and the unjust in John 5:28 and 29 and acts 24 14 and 15 he said yes they are all the same why is this important it is important because Daniel chapter 12 verse 2 predicted the resurrection of the just and the unjust and in Daniel chapter 12 and verse 7 it is specifically and emphatically stated that that resurrection would be quote when the power of the holy people is completely shattered unquote now folks the holy people there is not the church because the church can never be shattered right and it's not the gospel because the gospel will never pass away which means by the way the gospel age will never end there kind of goes David's argument about the end of time in the end of the Christian age Christian age has no end number three I asked him to specifically define quote the law unquote that pole is defined as or called the strength of sin unquote in 1st Corinthians 15:55 and 56 and he said quote the law of Moses unquote will amen and amen that's almost a universally held view but here's the problem with that in 1st Corinthians 15 the resurrection would occur when the law that is the strength of sin and it's literally the sin that resurrection would be when the law would be taken out of the way but D law is the law of Moses therefore the resurrection of 1st Corinthians chapter 15 would be or will according to David's view when the law of Moses is taken out Lake wait a minute David says the law of Moses was removed at the cross well how could Paul be looking for the removal of the law the strength of sin which David Hester defines as the law of Moses how could Paul still be looking for the removal of that law years after the cross I asked him question number 4 when were or will all of God's Old Covenant promises made Old Covenant is rope fulfilled and his covenant relationship with them terminated he said at the cross oh wait a minute he had already said Daniel chapter 12 which is a promise made Old Covenant Israel Old Covenant Israel after the flesh he said that predicts the resurrection at the so-called end of time folks those are two diametrically opposed claims you cannot say that God's promises all of them to Israel were fulfilled at the cross and the O and the law of Moses was nailed the cross and then turn right around and say that Daniel chapter 12 which was a promise at Old Covenant promise made the Old Covenant Israel and that remains to be fulfilled at the end of time now I want you to keep these things in mind as we proceed and I want you to notice something in all of David's many arguments did you notice that David not did not pay attention did not bring up did not even allude to one single time statement of scripture about when the events that he cited that he talked about when the Bible says they would be fulfilled well here's some indisputable facts I've already called attention to Daniel chapter 12 verse 2 to 7 secondly the Bible is emphatic that's in saying that the judgment of the living and the dead which is the resurrection of the just and the unjust by the way Jesus said that the judgment of the living and the dead would be in his generation he said upon Israel and Jerusalem would come all of the righteous blood I think we can safely say they're dead all the righteous blood of all the rights just from righteous able by the way you notice how you talked about how local the fall of Jerusalem was he wanted to emphasize how local it was well let me ask David a question he needs to get up and answer this question just exactly how local was it if all of the blood of all of the righteous all the way back to creation was judged in that generation how local is that folks doesn't sound very local to me and Jesus said all of these things will come upon this generation that's the living that's the living and the dead judgment and not only that in 1st Peter chapter 4 verse 5 and following Peter said that Christ was ready from the Greek word he Tomas which means not only morally prepared but temporally ready Christ was ready to judge living in the dead and he said the end of all things is thrown there now by the way you notice that David called attention 1st Corinthians chapter 15 then comes the end and David injected into that that's the end of time well guess what folks it doesn't say that I want David to get up and to prove for us exegetically I want him to give his hermeneutic now David also said that I exercise Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic because i changed the meaning of all these words to fit whatever I want them to be well ok let's see what goes ready to judge me how am i changing the meaning of that by the way Alfred's Greek Testament commending on first Peter chapter 4 and verse 5 said the Greek reader would understand that to mean that he was talking about the eminent judge so how am i changing the definition of the words they're first Peter chapter 4 verse 7 the end the Telos of all things hey David is the resurrection at the end of all things yes or no the end of all things has drawn near and in gay can which is the perfect tense of English am i changing the meaning of has drawn near you see in order to change the meaning of it folks I would have to make it say has not drawn there but that's not what the text says now I want David to get up and prove for us exegetically that the end of first Peter chapter 4 verse 7 is not the end of 1st Corinthians chapter 15 not only that what's this Paul said then comes the end or excuse me every man in his first order or in his own order Christ the firstfruits afterward owes that are Christ's at his coming Greek word par seal well guess what James chapter 5 verse 8 James said the parousia the parousia not a the parousia has drawn near I want David to get up and show us show you how does Don Preston exercise a humpty dumpty hermeneutic by acknowledging and honoring what James and what Peter said when they through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit sit from the father who knew the day and the hour of the parousia the day and the hour of the of the end how am i changing the meaning of it when it's the father who sent the Holy Spirit to tell those men these things must shortly come to pass how is Don Preston redefining shortly quickly at hand and has drawn there the fact is ladies and gentlemen almost every time word that could be used in scripture to indicate eminence is used to speak of the coming of Lord Judgment resurrection in the end in the New Testament matter of fact according good friend of mine Douglas Wilkinson who's written a book on this by the way he says that they're actually 350 direct or indirect time statements in the New Testament indicating the imminence of the end in the first century how am i redefining those terms you know the funny thing is I suspect if David ever if he ever debates a premillennialists and the premillennialists will get out there and says well you know the kingdom is yet in our future and David Hester get up there and quote Matthew three verse two from John the Baptizer the kingdom of heaven has drawn near you no guy in woods wrote on that text and he said you cannot mean has drawn near mean two thousand years Wayne Jackson wrote a little book little track entitled premillennial premillennialism a system of infidelity and he said you cannot neck has drawn near me in two thousand years without destroying the meaning of Scripture now wonder was Wayne Jackson guilty of a Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic in changing the meaning of has drawn near no folks I'm honoring the meaning of words I am not changing them at all well so that I don't run out of time here so I can get to as much of David's as as possible give me give me number 61 please thank you and I completely forgot about this all right now he went to axschat where did I go okay I apologize for this give me all right here we go he brought up Acts chapter one and did you notice what he did not say you know David says that I assume a lot I draw love ungrounded assumptions well let's see David's problem here with Acts chapter one and by the way I really appreciated what he said he said he believes in taking all Scripture together well I do too folks that's my hermeneutic well I want David answer some questions for us how does he know what is there in the context that demands that Acts chapter one is talking about the end of time or the end of the endless Christian age listen listen very carefully to me the Bible affirms over and over and over again the Christian age has no end Isaiah chapter 969 Ephesians 3:20 and 21 Revelation chapter 11 15 to 19 so ask yourself the really simple question how can David Hester believe in the end of time in the end of the Christian age when the Bible affirms that your Christian age has no end what in the world does not in or no end mean anyway folks so what in the text demands an end of time number two if acts 1 is the resurrection of the just and the unjust as David says then it would be in fulfillment of Daniel chapter 12 when did daniel chapter 12 say the resurrection of the just and unjust would be when the power of the holy people is completely shattered see what this is doing this is exercising what the latins call on a logia scripture oh this is comparing Scripture with Scripture this is a lying scripture to insert interpret scripture if it is the case that Daniel chapter 12 is the resurrection of the just and the unjust at the end of the age and it most assuredly is and if it is the case that Acts chapter one is the resurrection of the just and the unjust at the end of the age and David Hester believes that it is and if it is the case at Daniel chapter 12 and the resurrection of the just avenge us would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people is completely shattered then it must be true that Acts chapter one was fulfilled when the power of the holy people is completely shattered I want David to answer that point overboard excuse me number three if acts one is the resurrection of the just and the unjust it's the judgment of the living in the dead I've already pointed out Matthew 23 now let me go back to first Peter chapter 4 you just got to catch the power of this and I know yes still here okay in our first debate as I've already pointed out I pointed out first Peter chapter 4 verse 5 that Christ was ready to judge the living in the dead I pointed out verse 7 the end of all things that draw near I pointed out in verse 17 that Peter used what's known as the onif or acardo now David knows what the only Fork article is very simply stated a writer or a speaker brings up a subject later on in the discussion he uses the definite article to refer back to that subject will in 1st Peter chapter 4 in verse 17 Peter said the time and it's literally the divinely appointed time Greek word Kairos for the judgment not a judgment but for the judgment well what judgment the judgment of verse 5 the judgment of the living and the dead and Peter said the time has come now let me ask you how is done Preston redefining that somebody explained to me I don't mean look verbally right now but somebody and you need to answer this in your own mind ladies and gentlemen how am i redefining altering changing what Peter said when I acknowledge that he said that the time had arrived for the judgment of the living and the dead and you know what was absolutely amazing in that debate David histor got up and he said Don Preston seems to think that just because first Peter chapter 4 is talking about 1870 then it has to be the second coming well do you catch the power of that folks David Hester admitted that first Peter chapter four which is the judgment of living in the Dead which is the end of all things which is the end of first Corinthians 15 which is verse Peter 4:17 the time has come the appointed time for the judgment the judge for the living of the dead had arrived now once again I just want to challenge David to show where I've read to find those terms show me where my Herman Davidic is a Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic show me where I'm insisting that we change them and alter the meaning of the words the terms in the phrases of that text he can't do it he knows he can't do it alright let me go on here I'm going to skip over number five I'll come to that come back to that later number number six ask yourself this question ladies and gentlemen why does David run to Acts chapter one or other texts as he did that do not have explicit time statements in them well I know why he does that because David Hester knows that if he can plates that if he joins first Peter chapter 4 with Acts chapter 1 guess what that destroys his eschatology why does he ignore Hebrews 1037 which he was telling us about the coming of the Lord of Hebrews chapter 9 verse 28 to those who in early look for him he shall appear a second time apart from sin for salvation the writer continues the discussion of Jesus Christ and his work of the great high priest to bring that into the most holy place to bring salvation and he says Hebrews 10 37 and now and the literal of the Greek would be in a very very little while the one who is coming will come and will not tarry now I want you to know David Hester when he answered some questions for me but prior to our first debate he said dawn your problem is that you seem to think that God is bound by time I plead guilty just like Jesus what felt like he and his father were bound by time when Jesus said the kingdom of heaven has drawn near just like he said when the time is fulfilled will what time will heavy Daniel chapter 2 the time of the four kingdoms was gone bound at that time was God bound by like that time countdown how am i changing the meaning here how am i redefining words did Jesus really mean what he said when he said the kingdom of heaven has drawn there how am i redefining those terms folks you know David makes this huge issue have done Preston alters the meaning of words he redefines them to Mecca mean what he wants them to mean I want him to show where I'm changing or altering the meaning of all of these time statements and by the way David completely ignores the atonement setting of Acts chapter 1 I'm not going to go well okay I have to correlate here okay I do want to get this where am I at here okay they yeah David believes that Acts chapter 1 is the time of the crushing of Satan the defeat of the last enemy that's what he told me in answer to my questions I actually asked him his physical death well you just got to catch this his physical death the enemy of the child of God that is redeemed by the blood of Christ and he said no hey folks let me ask you a question if physical death is not your enemy why do you have to be redeemed from it why do you have to be saved from that which is not your enemy Paul said I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ David could even write in Psalms 1 16 verse 15 precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints he didn't see physical death as the enemy of the child of God but David is standing up here trying to convince you that physical death is that which has to be overcome at the so called end of time the end of the Christian age which has no end now watch this David told me when I asked him if physical death was the enemy of the child of God and let me go to let me go to death affirmative death brother he said no physical death is not the enemy of the child of God and boy oh boy oh boy you just got to catch this and what all right yeah he's getting it he's working off my heart I gave him a lot to do better okay I want you to notice something I want you to focus very very carefully on what I'm about to share with you remember first of all that David agreed physical death is not the enemy of the child of God we'll watch this folks the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15 would be to overcome the death that entered the day that Adam sinned folks that's just undeniable that's foundational oh but wait the death that the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15 would be would be would overcome did not exist prior to sin according to David Hester himself you know what David told me David said death was always a part of creation created before man created before sin it was a necessary that's his word part of the law of the world that is under the law of the second law of thermodynamics now do you catch that from the very beginning of creation physical death any because he said the changing of seasons necessitates death ok did the change of seasons exist before the garden did in the garden well of course it did okay the change of seasons demands death physical death physical death was created prior to sin according to David Hester but the resurrection of first Corinthians 15 would be to overcome the death that entered the day Adam sinned are you following me here look at romans chapter 5 verse 12 as by one man sorry about that okay as by one man sin entered the world okay well I'm sure not going to get to a bunch of those by one man sin entered the world sin did not exist before Adam sinned it was not in the world sin entered the world through Adam sin and death through sin okay the resurrection to overcome the death that entered the day Adam sinned was not biological death because David Hester agrees in it it existed before sin and that's next woman's fine okay but watch physical death existed is necessary that's his word it was a part of the natural and by the way since sin or since biological death existed prior to sin according to David Hester what what did God do God looked upon every single thing that he had created before sin and declared it to me good that means physical death which existed before sin God declared to be good so I asked you a question again why do I need to be redeemed from that which God declared to be good now this means a physical death is not the death that entered the day Adam sinned the death to be overcome by the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15 now watch David admits that spirit we'll death entered the day that Adam and Eve sinned because they were kicked out of the garden in his answers to me he said yes they died spiritually thus spiritual death was the death to be overcome by the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15 now David told me that if Jesus was ever separated from the Father that means that Jesus was a sinner it seems to me that my good brother doesn't even begin to understand the primary doctrine of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ you know if I'm under sentence of death because I have committed a heinous crime and if my father bless his heart were still alive but had not committed that crime but went to the governor went to the president and said I will die for my son and the governor a president says you know what I'm going to allow that to happen you're going to die in your son's place does the fact that my father died in my place mean that he was guilty of my crime you know that's not right and yet Jesus died in our place God made him that is Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him he bore our sins on the cross but he was sinless he had no sin when David Hester tries to impute to me a doctrine that says Jesus was a sinner he is impugning to me something that I neither teach nor say nor imply and that violates the very foundational doctrine of Christianity that goes all the way back to the Bible itself ladies and gentlemen method Jesus died a substitutionary death yes or no now if he died a substitutionary death by the way and I'm diverging here from my notes but that's ok if Jesus died a substitutionary death was his physical death substitutionary book says strikes at the very heart of everything he said well if Jesus is physical death was substitutionary so that you and I don't have to die physically it's pretty obvious it failed didn't it because every one of us going to die physically okay was Jesus alienated from the Father well I wonder what Jesus meant when he said my God my God why have you forsaken me now a lot of people want to say well you know if you look at Psalms 22 that doesn't really mean he was forsaken that's absolutely false David was admitting he had been abandoned by the Lord he had been cut off because of his sins but he was expressing full confidence that due to his repentance he would be restored to the presence of God Jesus was bearing our sins in a substitutionary death now folks if Jesus is physical death was not substitutionary of our physical death and if Jesus was never separated from the father then he didn't die a substitutionary death in any way shape form or fashion but that's one of the most foundational doctrines of the entirety of the history of the Christian Church and how much time do I bro nine seconds well even I can't say much in 9 seconds so I will leave it at that thank you so much you once again is good for you to be here and for us to be here for this second speech where we will give response to what has been said you know I'm confused Don endorsed a book that adopts the view that there's a local flood yet now he asserts that that local flood is somehow greater I sure hope that Don gets up here and refutes his endorsement of the book sounds like he's trying to refute it or go back on it and I hope he does because that book teaches platform that there was a local flood which Moses clearly states was for all flesh and it's not an allegory you know you don't Don wants to allegorize a lot of things but unless the scripture clearly states that there's an allegory at work then who are we to assume and to assert that such allegorize exists it's an allegorical merry-go-round seems to me round and round we go alig arising all the way taking this passage of that passage this passage in this passage even though if it's similar in certain ways then it almost say the same thing friends that is not a way to interpret Scripture that is not a way to interpret Scripture we must let it interpret itself and yet Don is not doing that I understand his frustration that he wants to rehash the first debate which was almost a year ago he goes back to the question that he asked me in our last debate last year well that's not what we're doing tonight we're not answering those questions I post five questions to him he post five questions to me and he noticed that he didn't touch hiding her hair of those questions that I posed to him because he knows he can't you know he waited a year to answer me from the first debate will likely have to wait another year for him to respond to this night tonight my memory might be failing me but I don't remember addressing daniel chapter 12 in my opening speech and yet he wanted to run over to daniel 12 now i'm sorry that didn't be done expectation of how i should have made my affirmative arguments but let me be honest the nothing to do with that his obligation in the negative is to respond to my arguments which he did not do you know Don mixes the spiritual or the physical concerning Jerusalem he has a tendency to do that a lot he forgot that he is in the negative he's not in the affirmative he tried to give a second affirmative speech and yet that's not his obligation his obligation is to answer the arguments that I posed in the first speech he wants me to answer his questions that he just posed in this speech well when he answers my arguments from the first speech I'll respond to his questions otherwise my proposition stands we're not dealing with premillennialism tonight we're dealing with 8070 doctrine I'm more than willing to debate premillennialism and to refute it because it's an unscriptural doctrine and yet that's not what we're doing tonight were to discuss 8070 you know he wants me to answer acts chapter one yet he hasn't touched any of the arguments that I've made none of them did you hear it he may have reliably brushed over a couple of points from those arguments never once did he refute it so those Don believed that physical death and suffering are the friends of the child of God or are they the enemy I'll let you be the judge you know I've never asserted that death was prior to the fall of Adam in fact I wrote a review of the book death before the fall which asserts that very teaching and I reject it in that book review I rejected it the death existed prior to the sin of Adam because it did not I understand that Don is upset about what I said concerning Jesus dying a spiritual death and I'm glad that he's rejected the idea that Jesus was a sinner yet according to his rhetoric Jesus was separated from God how can that be anything but a cutting off a fellowship you can't have it both ways you can't assert the rhetoric and yet say oh that's not what I believe and I'm happy to hear that he does not believe that Jesus was a sinner when he died and I'm gladly gladly affirm that with him and yet his rhetoric asserts that Jesus died a spiritual death out of oh with God how can we conclude well I understand his frustration with the humpty-dumpty hermeneutic yet he has demonstrated numerous times that he utilizes that method because when it doesn't fit his belief then just just change around words and change around definitions look at Matt mark chapter 13 with me for just a moment mark 13 32 and 33 you know he wants to us to know and to believe that we can't know when Jesus came 80 70 according to this teaching and yet listen to what Jesus said of that day and hour knoweth no man no not the angels which are in heaven neither the son but the father watch this this is powerful catch the power of this now taking heed watch and pray for you know not when the time is jesus said you know not when the time Don says you can know when the time was who will you believe will you believe the Lord or will you believe Don I think I know who I'll go with let's look at Hebrews 9:26 through 28 again Don believes that the redemption spoken of in first 28 is the same as the redemption Jesus speaks of in Luke 21:28 thus the Hebrews passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem concerning Luke 21:28 what Redemption was it for which the disciples were encouraged to look at the coming of Christ with such joyful anticipation was it Redemption from the persecuting Jews dat the destruction of their City no for a prediction for persecution was the thing for which they were looking they were sorely disappointed for they utterly failed to obtain it notice did redemption for which they were to look consistent the forgiveness of sins no for this the disciples enjoyed many years too soon for those advocating 8070 doctrine Acts chapter 2 the gospel was preached in its fullness for the first time 3,000 Souls obey the truth Acts chapter 3 5,000 Souls obey the truth the church grows like wildfire throughout Judea and Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth before 80 70 people were being redeemed from their sins prior to 1870 that can't be why did what did was a redemption for which the disciples homes we ate wait eagerly for adoption as sons watch this catch the power this the redemption of our bodies Romans 8:23 now in other word you have two allegorize this to negate that but yet there's no hint of an allegory here there's no hint of figurative language here the redemption of our bodies notice further the redemption which Christians are to obtain that the coming of the Lord is Redemption from the dislocations of a literal death by a literal resurrection question if the disciples enjoy the state of resented rusul was destroyed when they were devoured by wild beasts and massacred by thousands what must have been their state of bondage I don't think Donn can answer that the appearance of Christ in verse 26 certainly refers to his first coming and his atoning work on the cross by the sacrifice of himself as that was clearly a visible appearance so also his return the second time without sin unto salvation would be literally visible look at first Corinthians 15 24 through 28 again consider romans 11:33 to 36 oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out for who has known the mind of the Lord or who has become his counselor or who has first given to him and it shall be repaid to him for all him and through him and to him are all things to him be glory forever amen what Paul states at 1st Corinthians 15 24 through 28 makes perfect sense in light of what he writes in Romans 11 God the Father is above all and over all it has been quite appropriate that the second person of the Godhead should deliver up the kingdom to God that God may be all in all now are you going to do wait with that verse are you going to do away with that phrase if they are didn't mean that or are you going to have to deal with it prior to Daniel's visions David said that he rules over all nations Psalms 22 God reigns over the nation's Psalms forty seven eight Jeremiah 10 says and calls him king of all the nation God scattered the nations in Genesis 11 he keeps watch on the nations psalm 66 7 he delivers up nations Isaiah 41 2 he made for one man every nation accorded acts 17 Ezra 1 says that Cyrus claimed that the God of heaven gave him all the kingdoms of the earth Satan is called ruler of the world in John 12:31 God the Father is sovereign in his reign yet our senses in which rule is ascribed does God not rule the church through his son Christ the Satan not rule the world is he not the father of lies today we just saw the spectacle of Republican Congressmen being shot at in Washington DC is that of God or Satan what about those who have been killed by the hundreds and by the thousands and city upon City in this country what about those who are massacred by tyrannical and despotic regimes is that of God or of Satan I think we know which is what if Christ was separated from the father then he would have been ruling on his own between 30 and 70 according to Don and his disciples now they may not believe that if they don't I would be more than happy for them to refute that nothing more than happy to admit it I understand being upset about it but I thought they were an all perfect agreement over there on the table apparently not God God the Father was not been ruling the adulterous Jews and you have the son and the father in conflict if that is the case the son would then defeat the father in 70 when the father's rule from Jerusalem ended thus the cutoff son defeats the spiritual body of the father Israel only to have them rise and return to a unified reign when Christ was the hand over but continued at Cole region with the defeated father are you following there can you make heads or tails out of it is that what the scripture asserts I don't think so if not why not look at Daniel chapter 12 if you wants to run to Daniel 12 all the time even though I've never mentioned it the first speech let's let's uh amuse ourselves by looking at it Daniel 12:1 says at that time shall arise Michael the Great Prince who has charge of your people who is Michael in this passage Michael is identified elsewhere as one of the chief Prince's Daniel 10:13 is also identified in Jude verse 9 as an archangel if Michael is to be identified here as Christ and I don't know what Dunn thinks about that then there are several problems he is not so identified in Scripture Hebrews clearly points out Christ's superiority to the Angels front to which of the Angels said he at any time dark my son this day have I begotten thee and again I will be to him a father and he shall be to be a son Hebrews 1:5 in Jude 9 Michael says the Lord rebuke you but Jesus did not need authority from God the Father to rebuke Satan as he repeats Satan directly in Matthew 4 10 and 11 even if Michael is the highest of the angels Daniel 10:13 says that Michael was one of the chief Prince's plural John 1:18 states that Jesus is the unique son of God not one of many Jesus has never called a chief Prince revelation 19:16 he's called the King of Kings the Lord of lords and Isaiah 9:6 he s called Prince of Peace but he's also called mighty God and same verse interestingly the Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that Christ and Michael are the same person let's look at Daniel 12:1 and 7 and every other case in the Book of Daniel with the phrases die people and the holy people are used that contemplate the Jews now I've gone and his disciples claimed and maybe just done maybe not as disciples we'll find out in a few minutes that the phrase thy people and Daniel 12:1 refers to Christians but the holy people in Daniel 12 7 refers to the Jews at a time when the Jews were anything but holy but go your way verse 13 states till the end and you shall rest and stand in your allotted place at the end of the days Daniel himself is to have part in this resurrection of which he speaks thus it must refer to the future General at resurrection if not why not well folks I understand Dawn's frustrations I understand why he wants to run back the first debate because he's really not doing anything tonight to indicate that he has any interest at all in responding to the arguments that I posed in first speech that's his obligation he hasn't met it but maybe he'll do so in the next speech I hope so yet I'm not optimistic that he will he'll probably wait until his morning news things over the next year year and a half to try to respond to it like you didn't allow it from the last debate yet we'll see we hope that he does and if he does then then his obligation might have been fulfilled but yet I doubt seriously he will because my friends his doctrine does not pass muster you know first Corinthians 15 56 states the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law now a currently from what I gather Dawn's take on this is that the power of sin is the law of Moses so it would only be when the temple was removed that the law would be removed and the death will become since the law the power of sin is taken away but considered jesus said whosoever practices sin is the slave of sin John 8:34 now according to what I understand that Don says only those who are bound under the law those who practice the law could be sinners yet we know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23 sins power to enslave men is derived from the law of God not the law of Moses consider Adam was not under the law of Moses yet he was under the power of sin the Apostle Paul says the strength of sin is the law 1st Corinthians 15 56 now could be saying that when the article is in front of the word law Paul exclusively means the law of Moses while he does include the moisés while using the law I would offer the Paul contemplates the law of God which includes the law of Moses as well as the law of the patriarchs as well as the law of morality into the Gentiles apart from the law of God there could be no sin attributed to either Gentiles or Jews Romans 4:15 Romans 5:13 sin would have no power to hold all men in its service the greatest part of Romans 7 is spent and explaining that great truth you know I understand why Don did not want to touch the priesthood of Levi and the priesthood of Melchizedek because he has asserted before and I'm sure he still believes that the priesthood the milk is attacking the priesthood of Levi coexisted with God's approval for maybe 30 to 70 yet it did not it did not read Hebrews chapter 7 and 8 and then come back to me and tell me that the Levite ik print Levitical priesthood is just as legitimate as the priesthood of Christ Melchizedek was without father without mother without genealogy made like unto the Son of God he talked about types and any times and he had a problem with my assertion that the anti-type is greater than the time well it always is it always is and when you talk about the flood it's very clear the flood is a type of baptism so are we to say that the flood of Genesis 6 killed more people than have been saved by the gospel of Christ to ask is to answer the question the type is always lesser than the antitype no matter what Don would say in response to that that is simply the case now I hope I really do hope that he will get up here and touch at least a few of the arguments that I made in first speech otherwise my proposition stands because he has not demonstrated especially that first argument that I gave remember that first argument that I gave on the resurrection he has not demonstrated whether that is unbiblical or unscriptural Ori illogical hasn't done it because he can't he can't do it not because I'm presenting it but because it's simply the truth and that's what I'm interested in I'm glad Don asserted that as well and I needed that he did he's interested in truth and I hope I really hope that Don is so interested in truth that he will refute and give up his doctrine and come back to the truth and I hope that all of those that are affiliated with him will do the same refute and reject this doctrine and come back home come back home to the truth because that's where we need to be we've got a lost world we have a world dying in sin and we need to be about the business of saving people with the blood-soaked gospel of Christ that emphasizes the cross if I be lifted up from the earth Jesus says I will draw all men unto me did you hear a word about the cross from Dawn in that first speech I don't think I did the cross is central the cross is central to Christianity and yet you're not going to hear it emphasized by him and that's a sad thing indeed now he did emphasize I'm glad he did the substitutionary death of Christ and I'm glad he asserted that and I hope he continues down that road because that will lead you to the truth and that will lead you to reject every false way I thank you once again for the time I believe I'm ready so we can go all right first of all I want to go back to something David said in his very first speech and you know it always takes more time to answer than it does to state but anyway David talking about coveted eschatology ie what I what I believe in and he says folks you cannot find this mention in the second and third and fourth centuries it did it would never existed until Jay short Russell's well I would suggest that David do a little more research he really ought to go study some men by the name of Grotius he ought to study cement by the name of Hammond and all by the way in a speech on the Internet a speech that he gave right here in this building I'm assuming standing right down there David on Revelation chapter 13 he identified the Beast of Revelation chapter 13 as deletion and he said now some folks might object to that because they would claim we don't have any evidence of Domitian ever persecuting the church and he said that's right however you got to catch the power of this David you can't steal my saying by the way I guess good said David then said just because we don't have any evidence for it doesn't mean it's not true do you catch the power of that well let me turn that around just a little bit just because we don't have any specific statement in the early 2nd 3rd and 4th century writers about full covenant eschatology just goes the evidence is not there doesn't mean it's not true that's David's own principle maybe do you really accept that principle oh by the way he went ahead to say we don't have any evidence yet and I love that when he said that you know why it is estimated that only around 10 percent of the early writings have been translated only about 10 percent how do we know we don't have some full preterist writings in the early church writers since so few of them have actually been translated I would say well we don't have any evidence of it yet I'll tell you what we do have and I document this in my book we shall meet them in the air the wedding of the king of kings we have statement after statement after statement in the second third and fourth century patristic writers that they believe the Lord came in flaming fire on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory in AD 70 some of those writers even go so far as to say that we are no longer under the curse and the curse he was talking about was the curse of first Corinthians 15 folks the only logical thing to accept about that is he was saying and that was an atheist by the way in case you want to know he was saying the resurrection had occurred now David makes a great big deal out of two laws and he says let's see if Preston addresses this because Preston is on record as saying that two priests hoods were in effect well look here's the problem ladies and gentlemen he has is ignoring what I've actually taught David's good at diverting attention away from the full scope of what I do teach could Jesus be high priest while the priesthood was operative on earth well Hebrews chapter eight verse five says if he that is Christ were on earth he could not be a priest since there are priests who minister according to the law now David will get up here he says well that doesn't mean they were approved well what it does prove is Hebrews chapter eight says Christ was and Hebrews seven and eight teaches us Christ was at that very time a priest after the order of Melchizedek where was he ministry in the heavenly places so we have Christ at a high priests in the heavens and we have the milk we have the Levitical priesthood going on at the same time now David says it's just simply not possible to have two laws two systems in fact at the same time let's see if he'll let's see if he'll stand up to that God gave his law the law of Moses to Israel not to any other nation Psalms 147 19 to 20 Gentiles did not have the law whether it was that two systems operating at the identical time with God's approval with God sanction yes or no let's go on next chart I'll do that I want you to take a look at this and you just heard another flip-flop by David Hester in our first debate he admitted he stated emphatically with no qualifier ladies and gentlemen the definition of the law now watch this the resurrection would be Wendy law that is a strength of sin would be removed first 1515 55 and 56 now again I ask David to specifically define the law the law listen to me Paul uses the term hoe Nomos V law 117 times in the New Testament or I should say the term that that term is used there are only about 10 times when it does not refer specifically and explicitly to the law of Moses if it does not refer to the law of Moses for instance the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus Romans chapter 8 that law that's not the law of Moses is specifically defined the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has sent me free from the law of sin and death well there's three laws but what the law the law of Moses could not do God did by sending his son first listen to me David Hester defined the law in 1st Corinthians 15 as the Mosaic law no qualifier no well it might be this and it might be that boy I tell you what William and I said they're trying to figure out what in the world he was trying establish by trying to deny now what he admitted before our first debate you know why he does that folks well it's right here he said the law of Moses in and he says the resurrection of course is at the end of time well well here's what that means the law that was the strength of sin by the way it can't be the gospel folks the gospel sets us free from the law of sin and death most the law of Moses emphasized the law of sin and death David Hester said the law of Moses cannot free us from the law of sin and death those are his words so the law that was the strength of sin was the law of Moses and is not removed until the end of time so what we have the gospel which is not the strength of sin will also continue until the end of time by the way did you notice he didn't touch top side or bottom he didn't breathe on the fact that the gospel age has no end hey look folks if you don't get anything else get the fact that gospel age has no end and he referred to Daniel chapter 12 and did another flip-flop by the way he changed they said well you know these predators are at least on believes that Daniel chapter 12 verse 1 your people shall be delivered that's Christians I believe that's the righteous remnant of Israel are they Christians yes but they're still Israel after the flesh and he says how could Israel be called your holy people they were wicked well yes they were wicked you know what in Revelation the holy city which is the city where the Lord was slain is destroyed now why would she be destroyed for killing the Lord does that make her wicked and unholy unrighteous of course it does but it's still called the holy city that's David's problem that's not my problem and it raises a question since the resurrection of Daniel chapter 12 verse 2 is according to David's position that he just stated in his second affirmative it's the general resurrection now watch this it would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered now folks if that's the resurrection at the end of the Christian age I want David to explain to us very very carefully how the power of God's people will ever be shattered jesus said heaven and earth pass away but he's not referring physical heaven on earth he said heaven and earth will pass away my word will never pass away listen to me when the Mosaic law was no longer in effect it was it was removed taken out of the way Hebrews chapter 12 25 and following according to David hipsters view of Daniel chapter 12 and don't you think was kind of interesting he got up there and objected to me bringing up Daniel chapter 12 saying I didn't but I didn't mention it why is dumb bringing it up well God's desperate so he had to bring it up in what did he do he goes back to Daniel chapter 2 because he feels the force of that but here's the question the law of Moses was removed taken out of the way when it no longer functioned in its divinely ordained manner jesus said my word will never pass away David Hester believes that a time is coming in which there will be no more evangelism the gospel will cease to function as it was divinely ordained that is a flat-out bold-faced contradiction of our Lord's words when he said my word will never pass away well unless David wants to say well you know it will never pass away it will just be put up a museum somewhere it won't be operative it just won't be functional but he'll still be around know now well I want to continue here very very quickly on two laws in Acts chapter 1 Paul went into James and all the elders were present this is James and the entire divinely inspired leadership of the church at Jerusalem when he Poli greeted them he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry and when they heard it excuse me I'm sorry you see brother this is James talking to Paul you see brother how many myriads of thousand that's thousands upon thousands of Jews there are who have believed their Christian Jews and they are zealous for the law boy you know James bless his heart and bless the lead heart of the leader you know in the south we got that say bless their heart right bless the heart of the leadership of the church at Jerusalem all of the elders and the myriads of thousands of Jews who had believed in Jesus Christ but who were still practicing the law bless their heart they just didn't get the memo that David asserts that the note that the law was nailed to the cross but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to protect Moses saying they ought to circumcise their not to circumcise their children or to walk according to law now let me skip down we met four men James said take film be purified with them pay their expenses that so that they may shave their heads that all may know listen to this that everyone may know that the things which they are informed concerning you pole up we've heard you teach against the law James says here's what I here's what you got to do brother Paul you got to pay the valves you got to make the sacrifice you got to prove that the rumors about you are false bless Paul's heart he should have stood right up to James right up to the elders and said brethren that's exactly and precisely what I teach the poll didn't do that now watch this James and the entire leadership the Jerusalem church the elders in the mirrors of Jewish Christians were zealously keeping the law question David were they sinning simple yes in yes or no they had been told by poll or told that poll taught the Jews among the Gentiles to abandon the law they called on Paul to go to the temple to pay the bells to offer the sacrifice to prove that what they had heard was wrong and that he did not keep the law or kyoumi that he did keep the law Paul said okay no problem so the question is Dave were they wrong were they sinning was Paul wrong where the myriads of thousands wrong the Jerusalem church leadership is said to watch this then said that the Gentile Christians were not under that obligation that's acts 15 by the way that David tried to use for his purposes but it backfires now I want you to notice here folks was the Jerusalem leadership teaching two separate and distinct different obligations in regard to the law at the same time in the body of Christ yes or no all of these users Ellis for the law poll proved that you keep the law okay no problem Paul said now concerning the Gentiles we don't love that now you know David may get up here and say well you know Paul was just doing that out of convenience he was doing that for expedience sake so that he might be able to teach well if that's the case then the leadership of the church forbad the gentiles to engage in actions of expediency because paul the james and the leadership said as to the gentiles they're not obligated to this so if poles actions were strictly and solely actions of expediency to teach and by the way what was he teaching then he kept the law he wasn't teaching the law had passed that's diametrically opposed to the whole point of it so when I watch this that has right now that the four men and Paul obeyed in Acts chapter 21 was part of the foods the drinks and the various washings and the flesh fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation Hebrews 9 6 to 10 the time of reformation is the time of the setting right of all things it's from the Greek word deal orthoses well the orthosis is also the time of the restoration of all things Acts chapter 3 verse 23 which is the Greek word often causes a pocus ptosis these words are synonyms they're synonyms in the lexicons they're sick they are synonyms in the Septuagint they are synonyms everywhere now watch this the UH poker discusses restoration of all things would be consummated at the second coming of Christ acts 3 23 and 24 but that means that the D orthoses the time of the referent Reformation would be at the second coming what does that mean it means that the Nazarite valve the law of Moses those foods and drinks and various washings and fleshly ordinances would be imposed until the second coming of Christ which by the way is exactly it is exactly what Hebrews chapter 9 teaches because as long as that system stood valid there was no entrance into the most holy place when those things will be taken out of the way no longer valid man could enter the most holy place but guess what David Hester says man today cannot enter the most holy place that's what he said over and over in the horse debate I've got him in written form man today has to go to Abraham's bosom which is nothing to his holy place but wait a minute folks as long as man does not get to go to the most holy place heaven the law of Moses remains valid okay so man today does not get to enter the most holy place which means the law of Moses remains in effect it also means there's no forgiveness of sin today which means the law of Moses is in effect today because no man gets to go to the most holy place and the gospel of Christ is in effect today well okay I've got I've got to go on how much time do I have I know then what okay three minutes let me go let me go to Revelation chapter one and folks and that's number 167 I want you to notice he spent some time on Revelation chapter one and he says look at this this is all the earth well here's what's interesting in the lesson that he gave on Revelation chapter 13 standing right down there he quoted several texts that talk about the earth things which are coming on the earth and he said now folks that's the Roman Empire but all of a sudden in Revelation chapter one over seven earth all the tribes of the earth has got to be the entire globe I would like to see his hermeneutic to straighten that mess out not only that I want you to look at the time have you ever just noticed the time statements in Revelation revelation at chapter 1 verse 1 and he went to mark chapter 13 32 and following where Jesus said no man knows only the Father Knows well that's right but what did Jesus say in John 13 through 17 jesus said it is expedient for you that I go away if I do not go away the Holy Spirit cannot come when he the comforter has come he will guide you into all truth and watch this show you things to come so here is the father who knew the day in the hour he would send the Holy Spirit to inspire the Apostles about things to come what and by the way John is one of the apostles who heard him say that I'll send the spirit to you to guide you and show you things to come well what did John say the revelation of Jesus Christ which God who knew the day in the hour gave to a service to show things which must shortly take place now I ask David to show how I am redefining terms I want David to prove I've got a humpty-dumpty hermeneutic only on these time sentence it's David that says oh well you know no God's not down by time it's the father who knew the day in the hour who revealed to John to reveal to the churches these things must that's the divine Greek word Dei Dei divine necessity most shortly come to pass folk see these are time statements so tell us David how if the piracy of Revelation has not happened that's that's the coming of the Lord revelation 1 verse 7 tell us why why in the world we can believe Matthew 3 and did you notice I said it would be interesting if they would ever debate me the premillennialists because he would go to matthew chapter 3 the kingdom of heaven is drawing near and he said I'd be more than happy to debate a premillennialists but we're not talking about premillennialism though we're talking about the time statement that he refused to deal with and he says I didn't touch his argument yes I did if it is true that the coming of the Lord the judge and the resurrection of Revelation was at hand coming quickly shortly behold I come quickly if those time words are true valid and objective then guess what ladies and gentlemen the Lord came and he came in 80 70 thank you very much well I understand Don's frustration you know he has not again answered any of the arguments that I posed in the first speech which he was under obligation duce and seizing the negative and yet he again wanted to go into the affirmative and have me to answer all of his arguments and so we'll deal with a few of these things in our in this closing speech first Corinthians 15 24 through 28 clearly indicates the end of the gospel age he said I didn't give the end while Paul says at first Corinthians 15 then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father now you know Don needs to deal with that and he hasn't but maybe he will he still thinks he's in the affirmative as I mentioned yet he hasn't fulfilled his obligation to answer the arguments has he touched the first argument that I made on the resurrection no he has approved that to be false so that argument stands and all the other arguments that I put forward to you the logical arguments that I posed he hasn't demonstrated why those arguments are false which he was under obligation to do that yet he wanted to run back to the first debate and still wants to go back to that first debate and not deal with matter at hand which is tonight and the questions that were posed tonight in Acts chapter 21 nowhere does James state that he or the Jerusalem church kept the laws notice in that passage that he cited to you he said the Jews there the Jews Oh verse 20 how many thousands of Jews there was believing they are all zealous of the law yet we are to believe in acts 15 that that was contradicted in other words that the brethren there in Jerusalem kept the law diligently and yet they were still under acts 15 and they were okay in the sight of God I don't know how you squared that circle maybe Don could figure it out but I sure can't our way to believe that Paul and James the next x21 had repudiated the letter that was produced in x15 are we to believe that acts 15 clearly states that the Christians were not under obligation under those certain things that were mentioned Colossians chapter 2 mentions that the death of Christ the cross is where the law ended and yet we are to believe that the law was under God's approval notice that under God's approval for Mac 80 30 to 80 70 and that the priesthood of Levi is just as valid and accepted of God from 80 30 to 80 70 as the priesthood of Melchizedek Christ has entered the most holy place we as priests can approach the great high priest Jesus because of that Hebrews makes it very clear revelation 1:7 is prior to the symbolic writing that we find in Revelation revelation 1:7 says that every eye shall see him even those who pierced him remember that word pierced is the same word that appears in John 19 about when they pierced Jesus side same word is used Hebrews was written prior to 80 70 why wife sacrificed Bible dinickel high priest did that avail for any person these brethren to whom the Hebrews writer wrote had a better covenant they had a better priesthood they had a better high priest yet Don says that they didn't have it that it was sort of creeping up on them about white kudzu your spirit kudzu down here in the south well apparently you're just creeping up all of my kudzu you know kudzu if you dealt with it you know what all can be found in kudzu well apparently that's about what Don says concerning the priesthood that would be available for Christians oh you know this allegorical merry-go-round this allegorical circle that dun promotes where it's allegory here yet if not allegory here and you jump on it here and you jump off it there who makes that determination well apparently Dunn does not the passages of scriptures that he quoted if the passages of scriptures that are sited are clearly allegorical that is stated as such in Scripture then we can recognize it as allegorical but if not who are we to determine that you know in teaching hermeneutics you finally you quickly see that in the Middle Ages the predominant hermeneutical approach was allegory allegory dominated the Renaissance era allegory dominated the Middle Ages and yet it seems that dawn wants to give rise to that nested that interpretive method today in the church in connection with his humpty-dumpty hermeneutic I noticed that he mentioned grossest as supposedly supporting the idea that the early church fathers had this doctrine in mind well Gross's if my memory serves is from the 17th century the 1600s nowhere near the 2nd and the 3rd and the 4th centuries now why is that significant because in the 2nd the 3rd and the 4th centuries what citations we have from the Church Fathers from the patristic witnesses are unanimous in stating that the judgment is future that it has not happened in the past you can't find anything that says that he wants to get up here and talk about what I've said to the auditorium class and on Sunday morning that's fine I'm glad you watch them but still the fact remains that there are no patristic witnesses that sighs his doctrine because they're just not there now if he wants to dig up some oh that's fine but until that time happens then you can't make that assertion because they simply don't got a couple of questions to ask does Titus represent Jesus now we brought up Titus for speech does Titus represent Jesus and do the Roman soldiers represent the angels I'd like to know that I'd like to know the answer to that question does godless Titus represent Jesus Christ cause remember all the passages that we cited in the first speech is indicative of Christ coming in judgment that the Angels would be involved and cast those who are wicked into a fiery furnace where is the furnace in Jerusalem in AD 70 where such could take place where is all that is mentioned by Christ and those passages that I cited where is it in Jerusalem where all that happened it simply did not next chapters 17 and other passages we see how that the oh those second coming the final resurrection the final judgments are asserted as being in the future and yet Don says they have all already happened well Christ is our great high priest after the order of Melchisedec not after the order of Levi he were on earth as Don correctly cited Acts chapter a Hebrews chapter 8 if here on earth he could not serve as hype reason that is true he wanted to distance himself from the idea that he somehow puts forth the notion that there were two priesthoods operating with approval of God he wants to distance himself from that and yet he also wants to say well you know crisis in heaven as the high priest forget there was priests on earth and by that he means Levitical priesthood were they approved of God that's the question that he has it clearly answered yet why is the Levitical priesthood clearly approved of God at the same time that the priesthood of Melchizedek was approved of God or when was it done away was it done the way with the cross not according to Dunn he says he took care of all that so you've got from 1830 to 1870 three stood at work the priesthood of Melchizedek and the priesthood of Levi are Christians priests today were they priests in the first century the writer of Hebrews states they were and all the other writings in the New Testament that assert that we are a royal priesthood that they were loyal priesthood all of those New Testament writings assert that and yet we are to believe that there were two priesthood in place approved by God now Don may not want to own up to that assertion and I hope he were completely refuted but the fact is he's going to have to assert that such was not the case and I haven't heard him willing to assert that yet and I doubt seriously that he will so what have we established tonight we have established I know three things one Don believed that the flood is local now he may get up here tonight he had this but he's endorsed a book that does assert that it was local he even called it in his in his endorsement of that book called belief in a universal flood a sacred cow what does that say about it he believes the flood is local number two Don also believes that the law of Moses was binding on the Jews after acts 10 and yet Colossians chapter 2 says it was nailed to the cross number three Don believes that Jesus died spiritually out of fellowship with God now I'm glad that he asserted the substitutionary death of Christ as he did in Prior speech yet he's going to have to distance himself from that rhetoric and that language that seems to to indicate that God at Christ somehow was out of fellowship with God and if he was out of fellowship with God when he died then how in this world could he be had said to the thief on the cross today you will be with me in paradise if he was out of fellowship with God well he needs to deal with that the fact is friends he didn't want to answer my arguments and I'm sure it's been the case before he would have said he didn't say this but I'm sure one reason is because he didn't have enough time well I think he had enough time to do it but I sure wish he would have at least answered one and I'm sure all of you would have wished he was answered one of the arguments that I posed friends it matters not what we think about the matter it matters what the Bible says I have given you what the Bible states and I've given you reasonable arguments in connection with that that he has not responded to and I'm sorry that Donne seems to be a bit frustrated at times is because the doctrine he seems to be desiring sympathy at point certain points but you know he remains a friend of mine as far as on the Accords a level we have never had a cross word in a personal level never will at least on my end I know on Don's end we've had pleasant conversations in fact apart from the plenty platform but in the words of Shakespeare I will continue to lay on Macduff as far as his doctrine is concerned because his doctrine is simply not biblical some of you watch basketball I'm sure and I'm certain that you're familiar with the late Dean Smith the legendary coach of North Carolina before the shot clock was mandated in the NCAA Smith was known for the four-corners offense it was used when he was in the lead in the second half and Smith would have his team hold the ball as long as possible to run out the clock well it seems to me that Don tonight has tried a similar tactic run out the clock and then answer all of my arguments later on his youtube channel but here's the twist he imagines himself to be ahead but as we've indicated he hasn't touched any of my arguments tonight it's almost like Dean Smith calling for the four-corners offense when he's 25 points behind late in the second half imagine if that had happened and Smith saying well I'll explain later in my coaches show how we could have caught up and won the game but we just didn't have enough time tonight Don everyone here knows the truth you did not fulfill your responsibilities in responding to my arguments and because you did not respond to my arguments especially that first one that my proposition stands and I commend you to God and commend you to the word of His grace to find all the answers that we need on all matters of faith and godliness are we ready alright hey listen folks thanks so much for the opportunity to be back from my third- and you know it's interesting David said I didn't answer a thing in the world that he said the written record of this and the DVDs will prove that absolutely false and he knows that that's false I addressed Acts chapter 1 I addressed Revelation chapter 7 I addressed Daniel chapter 12 I addressed a whole addresses argument about two laws I spent a lot of time on his arguments now let me answer a specific question or let me let me correct something very quickly David thought he had me and he claimed that I was saying grotius was a patristic writer I never said any such thing all I said was David needs to do a little bit more research and he needs to study Grotius who was a 15th century scholar who by the way was a Bible who was a college professor at age 15 Wow anyway Grotius and Peter Hammond 16th century and then I took note of the fact that / 2nd 3rd 4th century writers do say the Lord came he came in flaming fire he came on the clouds of heaven he came in power and great glory Athanasius said he fulfilled everything that was to be fulfilled now did he go ahead and say that he believed in something future yes that's just his self contradiction folks you can't say every prophecy is completely fulfilled and then turn around and say oh but prophecies not fulfilled that's a contradiction then he asks a question and I'm rather amazed that David would do this I'll be really honest David says I need to know dawn needs to answer does Titus represent Jesus and the angels well let's see and Isaiah chapter 19 behold the Lord it's Yahweh rides on a swift cloud and comes into Egypt and the language is graphic that the river of Egypt would be dried up every citizen would drop would would be destroyed there would be no one living left oh but wait chapter 20 verse 1 which is there's no chapter 2 they obviously in the Hebrew says Sargon the king of the Assyrians would bring about that destruction now David did Sargon represent Yahweh well I tell you what he was Yahweh's instrument in Isaiah chapter 10 verse 5 been following Assyria is the rod in my hand the staff of my anger he has it in his heart to tear down to destroy to trample in the mud many nations he does not know to paraphrase the text he does not know that he is my instrument in Ezekiel chapter 29 to 32 God spoke of the impending destruction of tyre of Sidon and of Egypt and he said Nebuchadnezzar I have put my sword into his hand the day of the Lord is at hand Ezekiel chapter 31 and following now David would need to answer the question did the Egyptians or Jimmy did Nebuchadnezzar represent Yahweh release the day of the Lord and against Egypt and it's Nebuchadnezzar with the Lord's sword I went to hell literally that was by the way you know he says I allegorize well I just wonder how literal that sword was and you know for somebody to say well Preston Allen arises what does David do he goes to Revelation and the Beast was allegorical and he says unless a text tells us it's allegory then it's not really John was to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight in the desert a highway for our Lord make every mountain look low every Valley High well it doesn't say it's allegorical nowhere in the text so according to David's hermeneutic guess what has to be literal day and John must have been the world's greatest road builder landscaper now David says he's actually glad that I brought up the atonement of Christ no he's not he said he's glad that I brought up the substitutionary atonement the Christ no he's not look folks Christ paid the penalty of sin I made it more than obvious in spite of David's elevation to the contrary he said Preston's view demands that Jesus was a sinner it means no such thing David doesn't seem to understand what substitutionary means by the way he says I'm frustrated I'm not I'm just happy as I can be I'm having a great time because I'm not having any problems here folks I'm not even breaking a theological sweat David's doctrine says things and ascribes things to me that are absolutely false demanding by the way that I get up and correct those false claims and what-have-you but I want you to notice Christ paid the penalty of sin to make the atonement the substitutionary atonement and David's a boy I'm glad Preston brought up the substitutionary told me once again no he's not he made the atonement so that those in him would not have to pay the penalty of sin right what a substitution I remain in place of well those in Christ should not have to pay the penalty of sin since they received the benefit of the atonement that means you and I shouldn't die if Jesus's physical death was the substitutionary atonement reiterate the point I made in my second speech if Jesus is physical death was the substitutionary death so that those in Christ in the power of his atonement a substitutionary atonement do not have to suffer that death then guess what his atonement died I've failed because I hate to tell you this folks but in case you haven't noticed everyone since Jesus to the present day has died and every one of us here is going to die physically his substitutionary atonement if it was a physical substitutionary atonement failed because all Christians died even the most faithful well let's go on look at the next chart well I'm going to do this now if Christ's physical death to reiterate was the substitutionary death as david has refused and by the way when I asked him about this and the written questions probably the first of eight he review stands for that he said I don't have enough information to answer that question yeah he knew what would happen if the answered that question if Christ physical death was the substitutionary death so that those in the power of his death would not have to die physically than two things are abundantly clear number one Jesus's substitutionary death itself has been totally ineffective since every man since Jesus died his substitutionary death to the present generation has experienced physical death and all men will die physically or no man since Jesus died that physical substitutionary death has truly entered into the power and the benefit of Christ substitutionary death and the question therefore is which horn of the dilemma will David take all right now then let me move right on and let me let me get to Revelation chapter one by the way did you notice I put up a chart with what 18 times statements and I challenged David to prove where my hermeneutic is Humpty Dumpty broke it in pieces it can't be put together to prove where I change the meaning of those words did he mention by the way has he mentioned even one time Satan in during the entirety I pointed out to you that over 350 times do you catch that 350 times in the new testament the new testament affirms that the coming of Lord the judgment the resurrection the time in the end was at hand it was coming soon it must shortly come to pass and that was revealed by the father who knew the day and the hour and David Hester has not touched it top side or bottom let's go on I pointed this out this has to do with his argument on first Corinthians chapter 15 I've already addressed this I touched on it briefly but it's found on it the crushing of Satan ie the last enemy is at the day of the Lord revelation 1 in Revelation chapter 20 but Paul said in Romans 16:20 and now the God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly folks that's in fulfillment of Genesis 3 15 and 16 what's known as the protoevangelium the first mention of the gospel the first good news God told Satan he the seed of woman will crush your head here is Paul preaching the resurrection doctrine and he says the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly now the words translated shortly there is from the Greek term in take' and that term is only you seven times in the New Testament it never ever refers to the rapidity of action as opposed to the imminence of the action it always indicates how soon something is going to take place so first Corinthians 15 is the time of the crushing of the last enemy death and Satan as David's argument he says I didn't touch it I've already touched it I'm just repeating it the resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15 is the time of the destruction of the last enemy Satan but Paul said that Satan the question of Satan was soon to happen soon it was at hand it was coming shortly in Romans 16:20 therefore the resurrection of 1st Corinthians chapter 15 verse 23 and 24 was at hand when Paul wrote or else Paul lot and oh by the way disagrees perfectly with the argument that I made on 1st Peter chapter 4 verses 5 to 17 Christ was ready to judge the living in the dead the end of all things was at hand I challenged David to tell us and to show us exegetically where the end of 1st Peter chapter 4 is not the end of 1st Corinthians 15 and only said where as well 1st Corinthians 15 is the end of the Christian age wait a minute you know what's coming the Christian age has no end of the increase of his government of and of his kingdom there will be no end Ephesians 3:20 and 21 now unto Him be glory throughout all ages age without end GK Beale FF Bruce and host of other great biblical Greek scholars said the expression that is used by Paul in Ephesians chapter 3 21 to speak of the Christian age and its duration said it was the strongest expression in the Greek to express end less Ness age without end in my friend yeah he's my friend like you said we get along fine he has the temerity though to stand in front of you and say that what God says will never end oh yeah I will in the Christian age will come to an end the gospel will cease to function there will come a time in which the gospel which Jesus said will never pass away oh yeah it will pass away I'll never be fun it will cease to function now folks this argument first Peter chapter 4 5 to 17 remember in the first debate I made this argument and David Hester got up and said Don Preston seems to believe that just because first Peter 4 or 5 7 or first Peter 4 talks about 8070 that has to be the second coming well if it's not and I challenged him then didn't utter a word I challenged him then to show where there's there are two judgments of the living in the Damned and oh by the way did he touch Matthew chapter 23 the judgment of the living in the dead all of the dead all the way back to creation there went his argument on the fall of Jerusalem being a local event and oh by the way did you notice that David said he brought it up I couldn't believe that he did he said the flood was a type of baptism and that's after he had had you know after he claimed well types always go from lesser to greater well hey David is the physical act of baptism a greater in size action then the universal by the way he said I believe that Genesis 1 is mythical that is a absolute bald-faced misrepresentation I have never said that nor do the writers of that book say that you have completely misrepresented them my friend and you owe me and Dillman apology I have never said Genesis 1 through 11 is mythical not historical I believe it is actual fact now the interpretation of it you and I might argue about but is it actual fact yes it is it is not a myth it is not a fable well I got to go on here my microphone fell out so I'm trying to hang on here Oh back back to the priesthoods he said I want to know if Don believes it to priesthoods he tried to distance himself no I didn't I didn't try to distance myself from that at all I said Christ was in heaven ruling as a priest and the Levitical priesthood was active it on earth now watch this was it being approved well the Hebrew writer says in Hebrews chapter 10 verse 1 now the law while having and I brought this point up four or five times in our first debate the law having present active indicative when poll I believe Paul he thinks it's Luke I take it that's not mistaken whoever wrote it said the law having present active indicative a shadow of the good things there to come they're about to come literally so here when Hebrews was written the law was still a shadow you know how it was a shadow well because the Sabbath was a shadow of the resurrection a foreshadowing over the resurrection you know what David doesn't believe that the resurrection has happened yet therefore the sabbath remains in effect today as a shadow of the coming resurrection that's two laws in effect and i am out of time thank you thank you so much for your wonderful attention this evening [Music] you

Channel: Eastern Meadows church of Christ

Views: 23,677

Rating: 4.5475111 out of 5

Keywords: eastern meadows, church of christ, ad 70, ad 70 debate, false doctrine, david w. hester

Id: iH-QMbD22gM

Length: 132min 26sec (7946 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 27 2017