You are hereAnother "Champion" Runs for the Hills

Another "Champion" Runs for the Hills

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By dkpret - Posted on 07 May 2005

by Don Preston
Alan Highers is a prominent church of Christ minister, and the editor of the Spiritual Sword journal, out of Memphis, Tennessee. He is an experienced debater as well. In the October 2004 issue of the Spiritual Sword, Highers chronicled his own debate experience, as well as other significant polemic exchanges between members of the churches of Christ and other denominations. Highers hails the value of public formal debates, and laments the fact that there are so few such encounters in modern times. Alan Highers is a prominent church of Christ minister, and the editor of the Spiritual Sword journal, out of Memphis, Tennessee. He is an experienced debater as well. In the October 2004 issue of the Spiritual Sword, Highers chronicled his own debate experience, as well as other significant polemic exchanges between members of the churches of Christ and other denominations. Highers hails the value of public formal debates, and laments the fact that there are so few such encounters in modern times. When the Spiritual Sword with this information came to my attention, I passed it along to John Anderson, of Lighthouse World Ministries, with whom I work very closely. Anderson hosts a four hour, world-wide radio program each Sunday evening, and I am privileged to be a regular part of that program. Anderson and I decided that based on Highers’ belief in the value of debating, that this would provide a prime opportunity to invite him to debate me, Don Preston, either in a formal public setting, or on Anderson’s radio program.

Consequently, Anderson and I drafted a letter to Mr. Highers inviting him to meet me in formal public debate. I should note at this juncture that I warned Anderson in advance that Highers would refuse our invitation, and that he, Anderson, would be amazed at the arrogance that he would see in Higher’s response. I told Anderson that in the churches of Christ, there is a mentality that if they do not deem an issue important, then, it is simply not important. Furthermore, I informed Anderson that Highers was probably blissfully unaware of the rapid growth of Covenant Eschatology in the world, and would use that as an excuse to refuse a debate. Frankly, Anderson was somewhat skeptical of what I was telling him. However, these are my brethren, and I know them well! As it turns out, Anderson discovered that I was, lamentably, right on all counts.

In response to our initial challenge, Highers exhibited an alarming arrogance. His use of sarcasm toward someone he had never met was disturbing. He refused the invitation to meet me in a public formal debate, citing the fact that in the early 90s he had attended a debate between William Bell and Steven Wiggins, in Memphis. The attendance of that debate was not as hoped, to be sure. Highers insisted that so far as he is concerned, based on that experience, Covenant Eschatology is a non-issue, and not worth his time. After all, he has had debates in which thousands of people attended, therefore, if no one is interested, why debate?

Anderson and I discussed the situation and responded to Highers with another letter.2 In this letter I pointed out that one of the reasons that the debate in Memphis was so poorly attended was that, in spite of written agreement to promote the debate extensively, Wiggins and his partner Bill Lockwood had refused to advertise and promote the debate! They told me this personally, at their table, when I approached them and asked if they had advertised the debate. They stuttered and stammered, but finally admitted that they had not promoted the debate hardly at all. I told them that was a serious violation of the rules. But of course, it was too late to do anything about it. In response to this, Highers simply dismissed it, virtually calling Anderson and me a liar. He said, “I find the allegation incredible that Lockwood/Wiggins ‘purposely failed’ to advertise the debate.” He can find it “incredible” all he wants, but it is the truth. The real issue here of course, is how Highers sought so desperately to side track the invitation and avoid a debate. Highers was simply looking for a way to avoid debating Covenant Eschatology.

One of the remarkable things that Highers said was that he has regular contact with the churches of Christ and their preachers in the Memphis area, and that not one of them consider preterism an issue worth addressing. This is more than remarkable!

At the Memphis School of Preaching, where William Bell graduated, they actually staged mock debates in the school, to prepare the seminary students to go out and confront the error of “Kingism,” i.e. Covenant Eschatology. So, a prominent church of Christ seminary, in Memphis, has sponsored3 mock debates as part of its training to prepare preachers to debate Covenant Eschatology. But, according to Highers it is not an issue that is worth debating! (By the way, William Bell was told by some of the students of the Memphis School of Preaching that they were specifically told by the faculty not to attend the debate between him and Wiggins! One has to wonder why the school of preaching would sponsor mock debates on Covenant Eschatology, but when the “real thing” came to town, they would forbid their students from attending).

Furthermore, while Highers says that none of the church of Christ ministers that he knows considers Covenant Eschatology to be of any importance it is an amazing fact that Curtis Cates, from the Memphis School of Preaching wrote a book on the issue, calling preterists heretics.4 And yes, Highers knows Curtis Cates. Wayne Jackson, a regular speaker with Highers on the Getwell church of Christ lectures, also wrote a book against the A.D. 70 doctrine. Perhaps Jackson did not tell Highers about the book, or, perhaps Highers should tell Jackson that he should not have wasted his time on such an inconsequential doctrine that no one is interested in! Robert Taylor, prominent minister in the churches of Christ, and regular speaker on the Getwell Lectures, has written some lengthy articles addressing Covenant Eschatology. Highers knows him well. Dub McClish, former minister of the Pearl Avenue church of Christ, and host of the Denton Lectures for years, thought enough of the issue to highly recommend Cates’ book, and to have him speak against Covenant Eschatology on the lectureship. Terry Varner, from Ohio, has written and lectured extensively condemning advocates of Covenant Eschatology.

We could go on naming names. However, the point is that Highers knows and esteems virtually all of these men. Rest assured that Highers knows that Jackson and Cates wrote books on the issue. Highers knows that the topic has been discussed on church of Christ lectures.5 Highers says he does not know any preachers who consider it important enough to discuss. Yet, all of these men, and others, have written books and articles, have spoken at seminars, or hosted seminars where the topic was discussed and soundly condemned.

Realizing that Highers was so adamant in his refusal to debate me in a formal setting, Anderson and I then drafted a letter to Highers proposing that on a given Sunday night, Anderson would devote an entire four hours of programming to the discussions. We pointed out to Highers that Anderson’s program is one of the fastest growing Christian radio talk shows in the world. He is currently aired on over 80 stations, with more stations being added virtually every month. On February 27th alone, 47 new stations signed on! Listeners from over 29 countries regularly listen to The Voice of Reason. We thus pointed out to Highers: “So, while you say that you have conducted debates where there were as many as one thousand people present, The Voice of Reason has a potential audience of millions of people. Very clearly, on The Voice of Reason, you would possibly be speaking to the largest audience you have ever addressed.” What was Highers’ response? Here is what he wrote: “You make all the best excuses for the lack of interest in the debate in Memphis, and you state the very best scenario for engaging in a debate on a subject that interests most people as much as the number of angels who can balance on the head of a pin.”6

So there you have it! In spite of the fact that The Voice of Reason is growing at an incredible rate, and that growth is, at least partly, because of the presentation of Covenant Eschatology, Mr. Alan Highers has pontificated and decreed that no one is interested! End of story! The subject will not be debated.

Highers demonstrates several things in his response.

First, he shows that he is woefully ignorant of the incredible present day interest in eschatology. Is he even aware of Time and Life magazines that have run feature stories on the current fascination with eschatology? Has he ever heard of the Left Behind series? Does he know of, “The Last Disciple” by Hanegraff? One can only wonder if Highers is aware of the plethora of books written to refute Covenant Eschatology, When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, (Mathison), The End times Controversy, (LaHaye/ Ice) The Anti-Prophets, (Spargimino), The Second Coming (MacArthur), etc.? Is Highers so blissfully out of touch that he does not know that all of these authors state that Covenant Eschatology is spreading like wild fire?

Second, Highers has shown that he is willing to distort the facts. To suggest that none of the preachers that he knows consider Covenant Eschatology to be of any importance is simply false, as proven by all the books and lectures written by his preaching acquaintances! If the issue is of no interest, and no importance, why schedule lectures to address it? Why write books to condemn it? Why stage mock debates to prepare men to engage an issue that holds no more interest than how many angels can dance on the top of a pin?

Third, Highers has shown that he is desperate to avoid open discussion of Covenant Eschatology. First, he says he will not debate because no one will come. Then, when offered an audience of perhaps millions of people, he says they are not interested! This last fact is perhaps the most revealing of all. How Highers is able to know and decree that The Voice of Reason listeners are not interested in hearing a debate on eschatology is simply beyond me! According to the Arbitron ratings, the hundreds of thousands of internet connections, and the regular listeners in at least 29 foreign countries, there are literally thousands upon thousands of listeners who tune in regularly to listen to teaching on Covenant Eschatology! Very clearly, Highers is simply in denial. The real issue here is that Highers does not want hundreds of thousands of people around the world to hear his futile effort to defend his amillennialism.

As a young man growing up in the churches of Christ, I constantly heard my “heroes of the faith” speak eloquently of the need for honorable public debating. Men that I considered “champions of the faith” spoke of the need for discussions with those both in the church and out who were guilty of espousing error. I can well remember hearing these champions lament the fact that public debating was on the wane because “the denominationalists” had learned not to confront the churches of Christ in open dialogue, for when they did, they always lost members! In fact, in the issue of The Spiritual Sword under consideration, Highers makes these very claims.

Yet, now, a strange phenomenon is taking place in my fellowship. Men who once spoke eloquently of the need for public engagement of error, are now running from the fray. The excuses once offered for not debating members of the churches of Christ, and soundly rejected as dishonorable excuses, are now being offered by the very men that rejected those excuses when offered by others. As an example, I challenged Gary Workman of Texas to debate. He said he would not debate me because he did not want to give my error “a public forum!” This is tantamount to admitting that he cannot refute Covenant Eschatology!

Others, like Wayne Jackson, have refused to debate me because I am supposedly a “mere student” of Max King, with no reputation or respect in the preterist community. Interestingly, Jackson found himself in a similar situation years ago (1984), when he accepted a challenge by Walter Martin, to debate baptism. Jackson accepted, but Martin rejected him because he had no reputation! Jackson ridiculed and condemned Martin in public and in writing, yet now, Jackson refuses to debate me on the identical grounds!7 Ah, consistency, thou are a jewel so rare!

The fact is that if I were espousing premillennialism, or postmillennialism even, men such as Highers, Jackson, and others would be debating each other for the right to debate me, or others. There is one reason why Highers, Jackson and other so-called defenders of the faith will not enter the polemic fray in regard to the A.D. 70 parousia of Christ, and that is because they realize that they cannot defeat it! Their amillennialism is fundamentally and fatally flawed, and as a former “insider” who espoused that view, I know whereof I speak.

I have followed the writings of these men virtually all of their careers, and I never throw anything away! I know that Jackson for instance, has argued that “at hand” means well, “at hand”! It cannot mean 2000 years! Thus, I can document from his own writings, that his current attempts to negate the time statements of the NT are self-contradictory. In the past he has affirmed that you cannot ignore the “at hand” statements. Now, however, when writing against Covenant Eschatology, he wants us to forget everything he has ever said about “at hand” meaning near and soon. Instead, time statements are suddenly “elastic, relative and subjective.” This kind of embarrassing self-contradiction would be fully exposed in public debate.

There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that my brethren in the churches of Christ are showing themselves to be less than honorable in regard to their own history, and their own preaching. It is easy to see that Highers has acted less than honorably in regard to our invitation. To refuse an invitation for a debate with a world wide audience, based on the lame excuse that no one is interested, is disingenuous at the very best. The good news is that there are others, from differing fellowships, that give more than lip service to the value of open discussions. They realize that Covenant Eschatology is in fact growing rapidly; it is spreading across all denominational boundaries. It needs to be discussed.8 Consequently, some of the leading evangelicals have agreed to, and engaged in respectful and honorable discussions. We have engaged in discussion on The Voice of Reason with men such as Harold Hoehner, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. C. Marvin Pate, of Moody Bible Institute, with professor and author Randall Price, F. LaGard Smith, and others. This is not to mention the excellent formal discussions with the noted reformed theologian James Jordan, and the formal discussions with Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock, that John Anderson and I shared two years ago.

You see, there are still men that truly believe in honorable formal dialogue. They don’t just write brag sheets about it, they step up to the platform and present their case. These are the men that we appreciate and there are more like them on the horizon. Other high level discussions are being planned, and Lord willing, will occur. So, while there are those braggarts who speak of their debate exploits and the need for debating, but who refuse to actually engage in debate (another man by the name of Van Impe comes to mind here!), there are others who truly believe what they say, and are willing to come together to openly and respectfully discuss the issues at hand. We look forward to that kind of discussion with honorable believers.


1. Spiritual Sword is published quarterly by the Getwell church of Christ, 1511 Getwell Rd., Memphis, Tenn. 38111.

2. Spiritual Sword is published quarterly by the Getwell church of Christ, 1511 Getwell Rd., Memphis, Tenn. 38111.

3. As of this writing, I cannot say whether the Memphis School of Preaching still sponsors those mock debates. What I can say, from personal contact with some of the former students who participated in those encounters, is that even those “mock debates” led to some of the students embracing Covenant Eschatology!

4. If Covenant Eschatology is serious enough of an issue to justify the charge of “heresy” and “heretic” one would think that a love for the souls of those caught up in the “heresy” would be sufficient enough reason for a debate. This is just another aspect of the hypocrisy of those like Highers, Cates and others. They throw stones and accusations against fellow believers, yet they refuse to defend their charges, or allow those they accuse of heresy to defend themselves! Sadly, this is also true with others. R. C. Sproul Jr.. John MacArthur, Kenneth Gentry, Jonathan Seriah, and others commonly make the “heresy” accusation, but do not exhibit the courage to publically defend their charges. The later named men, in contradistinction to Highers who is blissfully unaware of what is happening in the religious world, are well aware that preterism is growing rapidly, and have written and spoken extensively against it. So, here is a “heresy” that is spreading rapidly, making inroads virtually everywhere, and yet these “defenders of the faith” refuse to openly discuss it, choosing instead to pontificate from their ivory towers.

5. E. G. Freed-Hardeman University, Harding University to name but two.

6. Alan Highers, letter to John Anderson, March 29, 2005.

7. It is interesting that I have been contacted no less than three times over the last two years, by individuals convinced that Jackson would debate me, and asking my permission to issue a challenge to him. I naturally granted permission immediately, forewarning the individuals that Jackson would refuse. One individual said Jackson would never refuse such an invitation! He was wrong. Jackson continues to give the same lame excuse for not debating me: I have no standing in the preterist community. He makes this excuse even though I have debated some of the top evangelicals, i.e. Harold Hoehner, Thomas Ice, C. Marvin Pate, James Jordan, etc., including F. LaGard Smith, a very prominent church of Christ minister with ever bit as much “standing” in the churches of Christ as Jackson. What is interesting and significant is that Max King wrote a letter some years ago, urging Jackson to debate me, and recommending me as a qualified representative of Covenant Eschatology. Jackson ignored the letter, even though, in the case of Walter Martin, cited above, Martin ignored a similar letter from leading church of Christ ministers recommending Jackson for debate. Jackson blasted Martin saying that it was obvious that he was less than honorable. The point is that there is a direct parallel between the Jackson-V-Martin challenge and rejection, and the Jackson-V-Preston challenge and rejection. Jackson condemned and ridiculed Martin for his actions, yet Jackson repeated Martin’s actions almost to the letter!

8. We cannot “name names” here, but one very prominent seminary professor has recently stated to John Anderson that the rapid growth of preterism means that “a major debate on this topic needs to take place.” He stated that he is very much in favor of such a debate, and has urged us to pursue it with the head of the seminary.

Jer's picture

We've been doing a study of NT culture(s) in light of cultural anthropology on Sunday nights. Part of this study includes the NT authors' focus on redefining what is called the "court of reputation." In other words, to what group of significant others does one appeal in order to determine what is honorable and what is not. The NT authors are redefining this "court" with regard to this new community of believers and its shared values. There is a reoccurring theme throughout these writings: live in a way that is pleasing to God rather than men. (MT 6; LK 16:15; John 12:42-43 are a few examples) The early Christians experienced numerous sanctions from their former communities in an attempt to shame them back into conformity with traditions. Some people refused to stand up under such social pressures. They loved the honor which comes from men rather than God. Some things haven't changed.

Virgil's picture

Since everyone is now commenting on a year-long comment, Jeremy I have to also agree :)

One thing to remember about emerging Christianity is that such social pressures do not work and are considered often the very reason for people leaving their original community.

I recognize that philosophically speaking, people will search for like-minded communities of believers to be part of, however as far as emerging Christianity goes, it seems to go the other way. People search for a community where they are accepted because they are able to share their philosophy with others, not to be forced into submission or agreement. The difference and results are dramatic; such a community is stronger and since it does not revolve around "shame and fear" the members are free to discuss, explore and consider other points of view without being afraid of exclusion or worse.

mazuur's picture

But what about the Apostles doing the same thing when they put sanctions on Christians in an attempt to shame them back into conformity? 1 Cor. 5.

It seems to me all Emerging Christianity wants to do is forget discipline and say anything is acceptable, after all, nobody is perfect therefore nobody has the right to discipline anybody.

This is fine when we are merely talking about things such as the "right" way to do communion, or the "right" way to have a worship service, or the "right" day to meet and worship. These are all matters of preference, which we can all certainly discuss.

But there are matters of morality where the Elders of the Church have to discipline. Now, if the offender wants to reject Church authority, claim they have no right to judge his/her actions, and not submit to God's ways, then I certainly hope the Elders are mature enough to follows Paul instructions.

This is the reason most people, I believe anyway, reject the emerging Church. It seems these emerging Churches want to even excuse the moral issues. Just accept whatever makes one happy.



Virgil's picture

"This is the reason most people, I believe anyway, reject the emerging Church. It seems these emerging Churches want to even excuse the moral issues. Just accept whatever makes one happy."

Rich, do you even know any "emerging Christian?" Have you ever talked to one or attended an emergent meeting?

mazuur's picture


I'm not going to get into another argument with you. Clearly you want to completely avoid discussing my point, and turn the whole conversation into one about me. This is always your first step in beginning your attack on those who reject your way of doing things.

This is strange as the emerging church, I thought, was all about accepting differing views. But evidently it adheres to the same idea as today's liberals. They love to talk about "tolerance" and "acceptance", but what they really mean is we are tolerant about everything except Christianity.

In the emerging Church everything seems to be acceptable except the views of evangelicalism. Their views are what is mocked and attacked. I'll tell you want I see coming from the emerging Church. Hypocrisy. The mere changing of "one way" of doing Christianity for "another way" of doing it. And now those of the "old way" are the enemy to be ridiculed. They are now to be the outcast ones. Now, there are numerous sanctions from the new emerging communities in an attempt to shame them into conformity with their traditions.



Virgil's picture

Rich, I asked a simple question, if you know personally any Christians who call themselves "emerging." The reason for asking you, is that you seem to regurgitate a lot of criticism heard from other people, when in fact the vast majority of things you are saying about emerging Christians are simply not true. There are SOME emerging Christians who want to promote questionable practices, just as there are SOME evangelicals, like Ted Haggard, who like(d) to do crystal meth and have sex with gay prostitutes.

Would it be fair to characterize all evangelicals as gay-lovers who like to do drugs? No, of course not. You don't seem to be making that distinction when it comes to emerging Christians. Why not?

mazuur's picture


I was not characterize all emerging types and I never said all who are emerging are promoting such things. But, whether or not you like it, the very philosophy of the emerging church does in fact promote such a mind set, which is why you see those who do want to promote questionable practices flocking to it. I am telling you what I see. Am not allowed to state what I perceive? It seems not. Again, all views are acceptable except those who hold to ones different than the emerging one. Theirs are to be rejected and criticized.

Concerning Ted Haggard. Is (was) he a complete hypocrite, yes (but aren't we all). But the difference is, which you just can't seem to understand/see, is this. While he was engaged in such practices, you certainly didn't see or hear him try to justify it Biblically. He, even though he engagde in such things, believed and taught they were sin. He didn't try to wiggle out of classifying it as sin simply because he like to engage in it.

This is what the emerging Church (not all) seem to do. Just go watch that video you posted on your blog again. That video was created and edited by those waiting to promote their Church, was it not? So, they purposely edited in what they wanted those watching it to take away from it. So, what did we see? I can't remember it all, but one person I do remember. And I don't even remember what she was saying, but I do remember cuss words being about every other word. So, what is it that those who created the video wanted me to see? A place where you are free to talk anyway you like. A place where morals are simply up to you. How ever you like to talk, hey, have at it. We won't judge you. That is up to God. Here you can do and act as you please.

Gee, sure glad the Church where I takes my kids don't have that attitude. I am glad they have the attitude that God calls us to act a certain way. And to talk like that is not acceptable, period. Which, seems strange, because that is how I teach my kids to act at home. Do you not? Do you want your kids attending that Church? That is what you are chasing after.

Like I said. How we do worship, method of communion, time of service etc etc etc. I am with you. I am just as sick of the way today's Churches are mere corporations working to get peoples money to build big Churches for self-righteous reasons.

I am just as sick as you, that to question Christ's second coming lands you in heretic column. Do I even like the whole format of "Church" today. No!

Virgil, I am not as far way from "emerging" as you think. But, it will take taking in person to convey what I think.



Virgil's picture

But, whether or not you like it, the very philosophy of the emerging church does in fact promote such a mind set

Give me an example of this philosophy? And what exactly is the emerging church?

Paige's picture

Ditto, Terry's comment. That is a very important point to consider...

Terry's picture

OOOOOOOOooooo, that's good!

doughoist's picture

I have continued to email Wayne Jackson and do everything from shame him to instill in him a false hope that he could actually defeat you and covenant eschatology in public debate. He has not once acknowledged one email.

I have chalenged the Elders and the preacher to public or private discussion or debate concerning these things. There is no love of the truth in them. I am becoming very discouraged. There is only a sincere desire to hold on to the traditions of the church as they know it. Using this line of reasoning leads me to desire to become Catholic as at least their traditions go further back than the CoC.

My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.

I have writen articles and handed out your fine book "Can God Tell Time?". I have made copies of Mr. Bell's work and others that are on the net and handed them out and they get not much more of a glance than the buletin and probably less concideration.

The preacher agreed to have a weekly meeting that turned into what was supposed to be a conversation via email that turned into a monolog of me sending mail into the ether never to return.

One of my great heros from childhood, a great preacher in my eyes, did have the coutesy to email a reply to stating that the bible aparently is abiguous about the subject but that has no bearing on our salvation. How in the heavens or on earth can the truthfulness of Christ not be important for our salvation?

May God help us.

I asked all of them the same question, did the Thessalonians recieve their promised rest from their persecution. Not one of them would venture a reply. The preacher has never once attempted to show me the error of my ways or even to prove what he espouses but he assures me he has written a book soon to be published refuting preterism. Ironic, he cannot return an email, discuss or debate and yet he has written a book ready for publishing that totally refutes preterism.

I am completly disgusted and wish that I could just thow up my hands and quit.

dkpret's picture

By the way, keep after Wayne Jackson! And if he responds in any way, please forward that response to me! Just like Highers, Wayne is supposed to be a champion of the faith, a great debater. And make no mistake, Wayne is a good debater! I have heard him myself. Yet, he is hiding away, refusing to even debate, under the most hypocritical of excuses imaginable. Wayne knows full well, as I noted in my article, that I have virtually all of his past writings. I know his position as well as he does...and I know why it is wrong.
Wayne does not want to respond to you, or to anyone else, for fear that his refusal to debate me will become more public knowledge. By keeping silent, he hopes that his constituency, who really believes that he is fearless, will not find out about his cowardice.
I recently received an email from one of his admirers trying to justify Wayne's refusal to debate me. The guy was clearly unaware of Wayne's past in regard to the Walter Martin challenge. I responded with all of the information, and the guy has not so much as responded with an email. Another one of Wayne's admirers has found out that he is not as courageous as they thought.

dkpret's picture

Doug, I fully understand your frustration, and share it to a great extent! It is lamentable when spiritual "leaders" who claim to possess the knowledge of the truth, and a love for the flock, will not even engage in serious study. But Dave is right, truth will prevail.
Keep this in mind, when Darby first came to America he was the only dispensationalist here! He travelled from city to city, sometimes actually being run out of some towns for being a heretic! Yet, he would study with one minister, two people, whoever would spend time with him. he refused to be silent. Look at where we are today. Dispensationalism essentially, and regrettably, dominates the evangelical world!
Do you think Darby was discouraged at times? Most assuredly! But give him credit for his endurance and perserverance if not for his doctrine!
Keep the faith and keep teaching and sharing. Things are happening everywhere, and doors are opening that are wonderful!
Don K

davecollins's picture

Dear Doughoist, It is very easy to become discouraged and disgusted when people you respect as students of the Word, seem so disinterested in any spiritual truth, especially when the credibility of Jesus is the issue..

I have been sharing with and praying for a group of pastors to discover covenant eschatology for three years. Today, one of them actually asked me for some literature so he could study.

I really believe that one day our view will be accepted and the impact will be tremendous.In the meantime we must press on with our words and our life to show the reality of the New Jerusalem community.

Hang in there, and remember that we are all at different places on our journey of becoming more like Christ.Traditions die hard, but the Truth will prevail.

In Christ Victorious,Dave

leslie's picture

Alan Highers, at this point in time, doesn't want to be known in history as the man who hastened the slide of the churches of Christ into Covenant Eschatology due to his lack of Biblical knowleadge. That is a heavy, heavy load to bear. Or on the other hand, Don. You are such a light weight, that any pup in the pew can handle you. P.S. Don, be nice to the pups when you steal them away, for their 'preacher'in the pulpit will be so sad when he finds out that 'his' flock is gone. (keep up the pressure) Leslie

Brother Les

dkpret's picture

See, that is what I keep telling these guys! I keep impressing on them that according to their own words, Covenant Eschatology is "a piece of cake to refute," and that since I am a nobody, that they would have no trouble putting this "heresy" to flight if they would just step up to the platform!
So far, though, the champions refuse to step onto the field. Methinks that they secretly, down deep, suspect that I may have five smooth stones in my pouch! :-)

chrisliv's picture

Hello, Mr. Preston,

I've heard you on several archived programs at the John Anderson website. Your biblical and verbal defense of the Preterist position is about the best and most detailed that I've heard.

It seems quite fair that those who talk tough about debating important issues should be put on "Front Street" when they avoid the Preterist position.

They undoubtedly suspect that the End of their Eschatology is Near...

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Dana_Nathan_Salsbury's picture

Hmm...the Apocalypse of Futurism...I like the sound of that...

chrisliv's picture


And your "The Apocalypse of Futurism" might make for a catchy book or article title.


Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43