The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Certain hyperpreterist have a three-year life cycle of lying arguments they use. Samuel is right on track. He once again misrepresents molinism and said once again said I misrepresented David Green. I did not.

Here are David’s own words from a posting of today:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/18514

A: IF “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is a one-time event that will take place in our future, and
B: IF we preterists say that it “has already taken place,”
C: THEN it irresistibly follows that we preterists “have gone astray from the truth” and that we are spreading a “faith-overthrowing” doctrine that is akin to “gangrene.”

After all these years, I still see no way around this argument. We can try to wiggle worm our way around it, but the simple fact is that if A and B are true, then C must also be true. If someone believes A and B, then that same person –if consistent– MUST believe C. From that person’s perspective, we preterists must be teaching a false gospel, according to 2 Timothy 2:17-18.

Does this justify futurists in condemning us? Yes, within their framework. However, this is not the end of the story. More needs to be said:

He goes on then to defend why he thinks we can’t rely on 2 Timothy, and to play the divide and conquer game, but that is really not my concern. The fact is that ALL I have ever said that David said was what he affirmed to say above. Samuel has lied about this multiple times. He was corrected about three years ago on this very point. SGP members, ask yourself why Samuel didn’t tell you that he made this accusation three years, and I answered it. He never responded to that answer, he just acted as if I never said anything. Is that honest?

Yes I do plan on documenting all of this with the original links in an exhaustive rebuttal. Why does Samuel repeat claims that I have answered and pretend like I never answered? Or to interact with those answers?

I will also be responding to all of Samuel’s lies and unethical tactics in one full piece. I will be documenting them piecemeal as well so that readers can see what is going on in bite-sized chunks.

Now David’s argument above in the part after “More needs to be said:” (for which the reader can go to the link to read; unlike Samuel I source my resources and let the reader know there is more to be read unlike his unethical use of the molinism article) is nonsensical. But since that was never part of my original point, I see no need to deal with that first. I do have it marked to answer. There is one portion where David tap-dances, and I will expose it. You see, David’s comment wasn’t a passing comment without context. It was in a debate. But the basic facts remain: despite David’s rhetoric of “theologically baseless”; “theological error”; “proof-texting”; “logical fallacies”; and “assumption of guilt”; my point remains. David is valiantly attempting to conduct some damage-control but the fact is that he said exactly what he said that I said, and he affirmed that he did, and that my understanding was correct. Obviously David doesn’t think our starting presuppositions are correct; I never claimed he did. I would point to David that he might want to drop the “assumption of guilt” claim. First it is not entirely accurate; second, we are both presuppositionalists and come to the table with assumptions. Just because he does not like mine does not make it wrong. Thank you David for honestly admitting that I did not misrepresent what you said. That is why I respect you. It was at the moment that I read that debate in which you made that comment that I instantly respect you. You may remember we exchanged barbs before that, but after that, it didn’t matter to me what you may have said in the past about me; I knew you had a backbone and don’t try to be all things to all people.

Samuel chortled that we should just go ask David if I misrepresented what he said. Did Samuel even ask David? Because David affirmed that he WAS in fact presenting a logical proof if my point of view is correct, which Samuel claimed he wasn’t, in essence, bearing false witness against me. Of course that is minor potatoes in comparison to refusing to repent of his defense of an email depicting me as the Whore of Babylon.