Responding to the Critics| A Response to Howard Denham’s Response to Bell and Preston

Spread the love
responding to the critics
Responding to the Critics– A Response to Howard Denham.

Howard Denham is, without doubt, one of the most caustic ministers you will ever encounter. He seems to be incapable of having a respectful, courteous discussion with anyone that differs with him, especially if you believe in Covenant Eschatology.

Denham recently informed me that, in essence, he was going to stalk me on Facebook and respond to everything that William Bell and I say and teach. He posted one article on his FaceBook page on 2 Timothy 4:1f, claiming that this single text devastates the full preterist paradigm.

In order to fully appreciate what follows, you need to know that early in my correspondence with Denham, he bombastically informed me that I was not dealing with an amateur, but that he has taught Greek and logic for over 30 years. He was taught by men that he assumes were champions of truth.

Well, last night, 8-12-14, William Bell and I discussed and dissected Denham’s supposedly devastating article. We demonstrated that Paul’s discussion of the judgment of living and the dead, was posited in an imminent context through Paul’s use of mello, in the infinitive. Virtually all lexicons confirm that mello, in the infinitive, indicates imminence.

William and I made several other points in refutation of Denham’s article.  We discussed the apostasy, the vindication of the martyrs and other related topics. You can listen to the archive of that program at Be sure to listen to it.

Well, after the program, Denham posted his response to it. He declared in his response that he had totally refuted our argument on mello and the imminence of the judgment. He conveniently ignored our argument based on Matthew 23 and Luke 18, both of which are irrefutable. He obviously ignored those arguments because when taken in correlation with 2 Timothy 4, the argument proves conclusively that the judgment of the living and the dead occurred in the first century. Be sure to listen to that argument in the archive. Anyway, here is Denham’s supposedly devastating argument, and then, below that, the response that I shared with some others on FaceBook.

The Argument of the Critics

Denham said: “Preston argued that mello in the infinitive always means “about to be, at the point of being” or occurring. Well, brethren, in Acts 17:28 Paul, concerning the judgment uses the verb mellein, which is a present infinitive. So, according to Don the judgment was then in Acts 17:28 about to occur! Now, this was spoken by Paul while at Athens and just after having arrived there from Thessalonica. But certainly well after Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill, the apostle, in writing from Corinth, states explicitly that in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the day of the Lord was not “at hand.” It was near or about to be, according to Don’s teaching a while before, but it was not “at hand” or near a year or so later! In fact, some scholars hold that 2 Thessalonians was written from Ephesus around A.D. 53-54.”

So there you have Denham’s supposedly irrefutable response to “mello” in 2 Timothy 4. Here is what I shared with Steve Baisden, who sent Denham’s post to me:

“Wow! That post shows one of two things: 1.) Howard is ignorant of the Greek, 2.) He is a KJV only guy, or something! The Greek of 2 Thessalonians is enesken, (sic, that should be enesteken, DKP) the perfect tense, and is rendered in virtually all translations outside of the KJV as “has already come!”

So, Howard is either ignorant of the Greek, or, he is purposefully and deceitfully trying to run a bluff on his readers! How bad can you get?

The judgment in Acts 17 was truly “about to be” but, in Thessalonians, some were saying it had already come! Two totally different contexts, that Howard is either ignorant of through lack of study– or willful ignorance. Either way, for him to claim that we are the ones abusing the doctrine is totally false!

I then further noted with Steve that the issue in Thessalonians is fatal to Denham’s argument.

“The issue is not that some believed the day was at hand. The issue was they believe it had already come. Howard is making it out to say “Don’t believe it is at hand” when the true meaning is: don’t be deceived into thinking it has already come. No excuse for a “Greek scholar” to make such a horrific mistake– or false claim.”

Denham’s claim– his supposedly devastating argument– instead of answering anything that William Bell and I said, actually exposes Denham’s desperation, his lack of scholarship, or, his lack of integrity– or a combination of all of these.

Now, we all make mistakes, and we can all learn things that we do not know. That is perfectly understandable and part of our spiritual journey. Just this morning for instance, thanks to my good friend Jim Wade, I discovered some things concerning the Feast Days of Israel that I had never imagined! What he shared showed me how much I need to study even more! It is both humbling and exciting! But, this kind of attitude has not characterized Denham.

He has bombastically and constantly reminded me of his skill in logic and Greek. If that is so, one would think that anyone that has taught Greek for thirty years, would realize the error– the egregious, unsupported error– of translating 2 Thessalonians 2:2 as “at hand.” It is simply unjustified linguistically. Now, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, Denham had never actually paid attention to the Greek text of Thessalonians. However, if Denham is the scholar he purports to be, he should have known that already, or, before posting his diatribe, he should have taken a fresh look at the Greek of the text. Instead, he boasted that he had defeated Bell and Preston, not revealing to his audience that he was making a blatantly false argument. This is inexcusable and unscholarly to the “Nnth Degree.”

Be sure to watch my YouTube video in which I offer further response to Denham. You can watch that here. The video will quickly reveal that the critics of Covenant Eschatology are offering empty objections.