Don K. Preston . Com

Response #2 To Paul Gates Concerning “Dishonest Don”

Share

Dishonest Don: Preston Get’s Caught!
A Brief Response To Paul Gates – #2

On the Reign of Christ blog, Paul Gates posted an article with the title above. The article impugns my integrity in a variety of ways, so I want to address some of the issues and charges. This is the second and perhaps final response to Gates’ scurrilous article. Be sure to read that previous article.

Let me begin by noting that Jason Bradfield, an outspoken critic of Covenant Eschatology and a poster on the RoC forum, has acknowledged that Gates’ article is simply wrong, and has stated on FaceBook that if Gates does not apologize, that he will seek to have the article removed. Bradfield is to be commended for his statements, and we will see what transpires.

In his article, Gates continued with his blatant misrepresentations of the Criswell situation.

Gates claims that, “When Criswell College learned of Mr. Preston’s Christological views and what  he had written above, they requested Mr. Preston remove his claim which falsely represented the situation. Criswell advised Preston that he should retract what he had stated and place the following on his website: “Criswell College does not believe preterism is an academically or biblically defensible position or that it deserves a place at the table. We do recognize that preterism has a following and we believe that those followers deserve to know the error of the doctrine with which they are being misled.”

Gates then says, “Preston did amend his claim, but the manner in which he represented Criswell’s position in lieu of his prior claim demonstrates his underhandedness. Mr. Preston’s amendment read, “Make no mistake, we are not suggesting that Criswell Bible College, or any of its faculty are in agreement with or sympathizes with the full preterist view of eschatology. This is not the case at all.”

Gates continues: “Why wasn’t Preston forthright with the College’s position with what they requested to be posted”

Gates has totally misrepresented the situation again. He strongly implies that I refused to honor Criswell’s request to post their statement on my websites. Now, what Gates conveniently overlooked, or ignored or, to grant him the benefit of the doubt, is this. Dr. Barry Creamer is the one that sent me the note above, requesting the change on my websites.

In response to Creamer’s initial request, I sent the amended statement that is now on my websites  to Dr. Creamer, and he responded: “Thanks for your considerate reply. I am happy with your suggestion.”

So, Dr. Creamer personally agreed to the amended statement, and had no issue with it at all. There was nothing underhanded, or unscrupulous in my dealings with Criswell.

Furthermore, in the entire correspondence between myself and Dr. Creamer, not one word was said about my Christological views. Not one word, Paul Gates! My Christological views played no part, NONE, in Dr. Creamer’s post concerning my website announcement.  If they did, he never once mentioned that as an issue.

So, Gates is, once again, guilty of blatantly falsely representing what took place in regard to the Criswell invitation. And this is inexcusable.

Let me reiterate the closing comments from my first response. Mr. Gates owes the reading audience of Reign of Christ,  and me, an apology for his blatant misrepresentation of how I have, for many years, expressed my views– openly and without reserve. Anyone interested in knowing the truth of what I have taught, openly, for years, about Christ’s body, need only read my book Like Father Like Son, On Clouds of Glory. You will see immediately how egregiously false Gates’ claims truly are.

Now, I say again that if Mr. Gates was not aware of the repeated, open, long expressed declaration of my Christological beliefs, then he should never have claimed to know of my beliefs and supposed refusal to be forthright in declaring them.

If in fact Mr. Gates knew of my long term, open declaration of my beliefs, and nonetheless made his scurrilous claims, then he is guilty of bearing false witness.

In either situation, Mr. Gates’ claims are inexcusable, and wrong.

And now, Mr. Gates’ charges concerning my supposed underhanded dealings with Criswell and my announcement of the invitation have likewise been exposed as nothing but a malicious attack on my integrity. Criswell College approved as fully satisfactory, the amended post that I put on my website. I did not refuse their request. I did not amend their statement without their permission. My amended post was approved by them prior to my posting it, and declared to be fully satisfactory.

Gates is guilty of judging my heart, my motives, my integrity. And if Jesus condemned anything, it is this.

As I said in the first response, we will see if Mr. Gates will apologize to the RoC readers and to me, for such an egregious, blatantly false misrepresentation.

1 thought on “Response #2 To Paul Gates Concerning “Dishonest Don”

Comments are closed.

Menu