Print This Post Print This Post

Don K. Preston’s Second Negative: Debate on Daniel 7

Preston- V-Vincent Debate on Daniel 7:13-14
Don K. Preston’s Second Negative: Debate with William Vincent on Daniel 7:13-14

Don K. Preston’s Second Negative: Debate with William Vincent on Daniel 7:13-14

Here is Don K. Preston’s Second Negative response to William Vincent in their debate on Daniel 7:13-14. Vincent argues that Daniel 7:13-14 foretold the glorification of Jesus at his ascension in Acts 1:9f. Preston argues that Daniel 7 is a prediction of Christ’s coming in judgment of the “Little Horn” in AD 70.

Be sure to view William Vincent’s second affirmative here.

This is an important debate. Vincent claims that if Daniel 7:13f is about Christ’s ascension that it mitigates all the language of imminence about the coming of the Son of Man passages in the NT. In other words, when we read of Christ’s coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory in Matthew 16:27-28 / Matthew 24:29f, that those passages refer to Christ’s ascension– not his parousia. Thus, all of the passages that speak of Christ’s coming in glory are either prospective or retrospective looks at Christ’s ascension, and are not predictions of his coming in judgment. In this way, the language of imminence is satisfied, argues Vincent.

However, if, as Preston argues, Daniel 7 is about Christ’s coming in judgment, then of necessity, the language of imminence concerning Christ’s parousia must be taken objectively– effectively refuting futurism.

You can watch Preston’s Second Affirmative here.

 

 

Hits: 27

Menu