Brian Schwertley, Don Preston, and Beyond Creation Science

On Monday, Sept 29th I listened to a debate between Don Preston and Brian Schwertley. I'm biased, but Don Preston handedly won the debate. (not saying the debate winner is always the correct one) However, most of the debate on Brian Schwertley's side was limited to statements like, "That's a bizarre interpretation...ect." At the end of the debate Brian called Covenant Eschatology a Damnable Heresy and no one should sit down and have a meal with a full preterist, and they should be immediately excommunicated. I'm concerned about Brian Schwertley's heart, and whether he indeed is living out as a "new creation." Brian Schwertley also mentioned that full preterism denies the gospel of Jesus. The denial of a future fleshly resurrection of the saints does not deny Christ's work on the cross, in fact understanding a Spiritual resurrection makes Christ's death and resurrection totally complete! Christ came and destroyed the last enemy which is death! His conquering of death also gave the final blow to Satan.

Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Don Preston held his composure very well, as Brian Schwertley essentially damned Don to hell.


Critical Review by:

Brian Schwertley, ReformedOnline.com
from
http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Review_Schwertley_2008

(Editor's Note: Comments made during closing statement of formal debate with Don Preston. Full recording of this debate (dated 9-25-08) is available at CovenantRadio.com)



"Full preterism denies the biblical meaning of the fall. They believe that physical death is natural... We're talking not just about eschatology here. We're talking about the gospel -- the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I want you to know that Don Preston gave approval to a book that not only denies the fall, as biblically defined. Beyond Creation Science is a horrible book. It teaches that the earth is millions and millions of years old. This book also teaches that the flood was a local flood; it was not a universal flood. This book is nothing but a ... cover to cover full of terrible heresies and garbage. This is an extremely dangerous, deadly false teaching..."

12 comments:

RYAN said...

I also stayed up until the late hours of Monday evening listening to this debate. Thanks, Tim, for posting this link!

What a great debate! The only thing Brian proved in this debate is that he is stubborn. Don is incredible. I like what he said after Brian finished calling him and Tim damnable heretics, "Funny how some people resort to name calling when they get desperate..."

Listening to debates like this is the correct protocol for discovering truth in eschatology. People need to hear this.

UncleJesse said...

Hey Ryan,
I posted this link.
It's funny how Brian just had to mention "Beyond Creation Science" and that whole "local flood and millions of years" heresy.
Jesse

Tim Martin said...

Hey Guys,

Don certainly wasn't the only one Brian damned to hell!

It was funny, Jesse, how he threw in local flood and old-earth creationism as "heresies" of the same order as full-preterism. There is quite an element of truth in that (from his perspective).

Personally, I think one of the things in the book that that likely ticked him off is that Jeff and I made a case that YEC views are gnostic. We argued in Chapters 11-12 that YEC views the physical world as cursed, and therefore inherently evil. It is this cursed physical world that, according to Brian and other futurists, we are all awaiting our escape from. That is the essential worldview of gnosticism, and Brian is mired deeply in it. I assure you that Brian is smart enough to fully understand our point.

I was able to listen to 3/4 of the debate live. I think the beginning and the end were certainly the most informative.

Do you remember how Brian opened with his physical/literal reading of Genesis 3? His futurism is based entirely on his YEC beliefs.

As long as YEC dominates Christian conservatives, preterism will remain a minority view. The real battle is in Genesis. What really baffles me is that there are (a few) very smart preterists out there who insist that Brian's "literal/physical" reading of the early chapters of Genesis is exactly correct.

Some days I just shake my head...

Blessings,

Tim

D. L. Pease said...

Wish I could have hear the debate. I believe Don Preston is the best debater since Alexander Campbell. If it weren't for Alexander Campbell's debate with Robert Owen our country quite possibly would have become socialist far sooner then it has. If you have not read the various debates of Alexander Campbell you should. In his debate with Robert Owen he gave a speech that was 12 hours long, but they broke it up into two days. The people at that time (1829) were use to debates, which unfortunately today they are not. What do you all think is one of the greatest questions concerning preterism - I think it is the resurrection. I need to get the last Pilgrim Weekend seminar that Preston held in Armore. It dealt with the question of Resurrection.
The real heretics are those that look for a future bodily resurrection. In Christ, David

UncleJesse said...

Hey David your an official heretic...LOL
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/09/preterisms-mute-messiah.html

Tim Martin said...

Hahaha....

I just saw that tonight, Jesse.

Welcome aboard, David - HERETIC!

Tim

D. L. Pease said...

Thanks for the welcome. Now we can all burn together - or convert all those who are Pusillanimous.

Tim Martin said...

Guys,

You might find this interesting.

http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Review_Bull_2008

It never ceases to amaze me to see people explaining what's in Beyond Creation Science, even making arguments against it, without even having read it...

I mean how do you do that? How do you write up an article on a book that you have not even read! Boggles my mind.

Ahhh... the state of academic scholarship in our day...

Blessings,

Tim

UncleJesse said...

"Adam’s failure brought physical de-Creation."
I find the first sentence quite funny, where does a futurist find this based in Scripture?

king neb said...

"As long as YEC dominates Christian conservatives, preterism will remain a minority view. The real battle is in Genesis. What really baffles me is that there are (a few) very smart preterists out there who insist that Brian's "literal/physical" reading of the early chapters of Genesis is exactly correct."

Like who, Tim? Can you provide some names, particularly names more well known in preterism.

Pascal Pensees said...

David Pease told me to hook up with you guys. I thought I would begin by commenting on the book Beyond Creation Science

I have recently read online chapters one and six of your book. You state in chapter one, I believe that young earth creationism is a modern development. Now in this day of battles of words, it is possible that we would disagree on what is meant by young earth creationism, so I will supply my understanding. In simple terms, a young earth creationist is one who takes the six days of creation literally. Creation did take place in six days. Therefore with this definition in mind, I again submit that the proposition stated about YEC being a modern day development is false.

Let us look at a short review of history. Many of the church fathers believed in a literal six-day creation. Irenaeus, Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Victorinus and Methodius all believed this. In fact, Methodius states "The creation of the world in six days was still recent". Papias, Epistle of Barnabas and Irenaeus all tried to suggest that the literal six day creation represents six thousand years of existence (combining 2 Peter 3:8) and then the end would come, presumably a literal thousand years with Christ. Cyprian writing around 250 A.D. states the first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years. Now did they totally understand the creation or how God did it. No!! And they did try to spiritualize it to see the fulfillment in the Christian age(but again with a literal interpretation of six thousand years) which was the common way of interpreting the Old Testament which we do as well. And it is true that some of the church fathers such as Origen did not believe that some of the creation record should not be taken literally(such as an actural tree of life or tree of knowledge) but allegorized, but no one suggests that they did not believe in a literal six day creation period.

Even in the Middle Ages the idea of a literal six day creation was so much in vogue that Bishop Ussher proposed a date of 4004 BC for the actual day of creation which differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC.)

I believe you are very much in error on this matter

Pascal Pensees

king neb said...

Pascal, if you read the book, they define YEC as built upon three beliefs:

1. Global Flood
2. 6/24 hr days
3. No physical death prior to fall

You got part of it right, but they would include (1) and (3) as well. However, you would still be correct in stating that YEC is not modern.

John Calvin promoted all three beliefs and predated White by 300 years.

Yes, they are in error. And the only reason they are doing this is to discount preterists who, like myself, believe the earth is relatively young, by linking it to a system we all would have problems with - premillennialism.

http://preterism.ning.com/group/concerningbcs