Michael Brown -V- Don K. Preston Debate Is At Hand!

Dr Michael Brown debates Dr. Don K. Preston
Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don K. Preston will be having a second debate on eschatology

I want to remind our visitors that Dr. Michael Brown and I will be engaging in a second formal debate tomorrow- July 8, 2015. The debate will be at 4:30 Eastern time, for two hours. It will be recorded and will be posted on YouTube as quickly as possible.

The themes for this debate are “The Fulness of the Gentiles” and, “The Times of the Gentiles.” These are two “hot topics” and are very, very important issues for our day. Dr. Michael Brown believes that the fulness of the Gentiles foretold in Romans 11:25 is yet future, and ushers in the salvation of Israel at the end of the current age. He likewise posits the end of the “times of the Gentiles” (Of Luke 21:24) when the Lord fully restores Israel in the future Messianic kingdom.

Dr. Don K. Preston affirms that the fullness of the Gentiles and the times of the Gentiles are two separate ideas, but, that both were fulfilled in the first century, no later than AD 70.

As soon as the video of this second debate is available on YouTube, I will be posting the link here. In the meantime, you can watch my first debate with Dr. Michael Brown here. It has now had– as I write this- almost 23,000 viewers! Needless to say, there has been, and is, tremendous interest in this discussion.

Dr. Michael Brown is a gentleman, and a gracious debater, with vast academic achievements. Our first debate was of the highest order in both cordiality, mutual respect and scholarly discussion and context. In stark contrast to some would be “debaters” whose main tactic is abusive language and name calling the first debate with Dr. Michael Brown was of the highest quality. If all Christian controversy were held on this level, more people would quickly see the great value in such discussions.

 

4 Replies to “Michael Brown -V- Don K. Preston Debate Is At Hand!”

  1. Wow, that is pretty amazing! Over 23,000 people have watched our first “fire side chat” to use your term, and virtually all of them thought it was an actual debate! Dr. Brown and his camp call it a debate, but, I guess they should have come to you and Howard Denham to know how to properly define it. Oh, I guess one could argue that even “fire side chats” are pretty effective since there are now some new preterists as a result of my first “chat” with Dr. Brown. Furthermore, the “fire side chats” that president Roosevelt gave– which were not intended to be debates at all– resulted in changing the direction of the USA. So, even your disparaging, and untrue, comments about my debate with Dr. Brown, demonstrate your desperation.

    Your desperation truly is showing, Doug, and your claims below disparaging the application of 2 Timothy 2:24 is incredibly disingenuous. That passage is in the context of controversy and Paul gave that mandate for conduct, but, you say it is not applicable! Not very convincing, since you offered no exegesis. And to say that Denham has not “quarreled” with me is not the truth. Pure fabrication. And unless you have access to our private correspondences, then you are patently talking out of turn.
    Hey, did you listen to Two Guys and A Bible last night? Oh, I guess I know the answer to that, don’t I– or do I? And, when can I expect your critique of my response to Denham’s first syllogism that I have been asking for?
    Thanks again for your great comments in your presentation, in which you affirmed that when God said something was near, that He meant what He said!
    With one stroke you destroyed the rest of the Bellview lectureship speakers! We truly appreciate it– since there is no “not at hand” coming of the Lord in the NT!

    Now, if you cannot do anything but repeat your mantra– which of course is false to the core– that I am afraid to debate, then there is no need to keep posting. My readers are tiring quickly of your hateful posts– and I am as well. Say something substantive and Biblical, or don’t bother. But, be sure to keep listening to Two Guys and A Bible for when we critique your lesson. We will be having a very good time with your fatal admissions and futile attempts to refute the truth.

  2. Doug, bless your heart, did you read my article in response to Denham? Seriously, Denham’s comments here are so full of falsehood and misrepresentation that I do not have the time — or the interest – to even respond to such blatantly false comments. I will not go into detail, but, let me off a few comments. Then, since your refuse to correspond without name calling I will put you on notice that I will not allow that to continue. You either post with courtesy and respect, or your posts will be deleted. Do you understand that clearly? If you want to learn how to conduct yourself with the proper decorum watch the debate I had with Dr. Brown yesterday on YouTube. Okay, now just a thought or two:
    1. As I proved in the article, Denham’s claims about 2 Thessalonians 2 are based on a false translation- period! It is truly sad when a man has to base his eschatology on a translation that is false to the core. So, Denham’s claim that I ignored his argument is specious and false.
    2. I presented no argument detrimental or fatal to my premises or position, and you will note that Denham offered not a word of proof for his claim.
    3. I demonstrated in my article– have you read it, Doug??- that it is Denham that abuses logic– horribly so.
    4. I did not have to have – and by the way, I did not have- any of Denham’s other material. His claim that I had his additional material is false. Steve Baisden sent me the list of syllogisms, and that is all I had. So, once again, Denham makes a false charge.
    5. The bottom line is that regardless of what other materials he might have offered, when I demonstrated– as I did quite effectively – that his syllogistic premises are false, then any additional arguments he might have made were thereby falsified. That is how proper logic works, Doug– and Denham knows it full well. Falsification of his premises falsifies his eschatology, even if he had written volume upon volume of material in support of those false premises. It is Denham that is totally abusing logic.
    6. Denham has not, and cannot falsify my syllogism, without perverting scripture and abusing logic– which is precisely what he did in the post and in his syllogism. Just really sad stuff.

  3. Last warning, Doug– stop the name calling and acerbic verbiage. What part of this do you not understand?
    No, the fact is that when it is admitted that God can tell time, and that when He says something is near, it is truly near, that truly does negate every other argument made by the speakers– including you – at Bellview.
    Show me a text that speaks of a “not at hand” coming of the Lord, Doug Post. Come on now, surely you can do that, can’t you?
    I will hang up and watch and listen. Give us a text that says Christ’s coming was not near in the first century, without you having to jump through hoops to make it say that. This will be interesting.
    So, Doug, Man Up!

  4. Well, you asked for it, and you got it! Bye, bye!
    To those who may have been reading Doug Posts comments, I have deleted most of them, due to his caustic and hateful, un-Christian behavior and attitude. I gave him warning after warning, telling him to stop the name calling. He refused. I challenged him to engage in respectful dialogue– he refused. I challenged him to demonstrate how my article responding to Howard Denham was – in any way – false. He refused.
    Mr. Post is clearly nothing but an acolyte of Howard Denham, and demonstrates the same un-Christian behavior, attitude and verbiage. His claims that I am afraid to debate Denham have been answered time and again by not only me but others as well. The fact is– the reason is – that I refuse to engage in mudslinging, name calling “debates” that do nothing but shame the name of Christ and Christian controversy. The fact that I have and do engage world class scholars in formal debate– men who debate with decorum and respect unlike Mr. Post and Denham, prove to the logical, honest reader that Mr. Post’s claims are specious.
    I do not often delete comments because I believe in dialogue. I do however, insist that those posting in my blog exhibit the spirit of Christ. Mr. Post refused, so, I deleted most of his comments.

Comments are closed.

Menu