You are hereAnother Self Proclaimed "Defender of the Faith" Refuses to Defend It!

Another Self Proclaimed "Defender of the Faith" Refuses to Defend It!

  • 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 13 January 2004

by Don Preston
Wayne Jackson is a well known apologist in the church of Christ fellowship. He has debated numerous atheists, and held other debates on a variety of topics. He is considered by many in the churches of Christ, and perhaps by himself as well, to be one of the leading "defenders of the faith."Wayne Jackson is a well known apologist in the church of Christ fellowship. He has debated numerous atheists, and held other debates on a variety of topics. He is considered by many in the churches of Christ, and perhaps by himself as well, to be one of the leading "defenders of the faith."I immediately responded to brother Trapp that I would gladly debate Jackson, but that Jackson simply would not do so. Nonetheless, I encouraged him to make the offer. Below, I have cut and pasted the correspondence between Daryl Trapp, Wayne Jackson, and myself, about the possibility of a debate between Jackson and myself. It is troubling to say the least.

Brother Preston:

I emailed Wayne Jackson the other day concerning the possibility of having a debate with you on the "end times". My letter and his response follow.


Brother Jackson:

Have you ever considered a debate on preterism with
Don K. Preston?

Darryl Trapp


Wayne Jackson's reply is as follows.........

Dear Darryl,

No, I've not considered debating Don Preston. Some years ago, when Preston was a Max King-wanna-be, I offered to debate King out here in California, but he refused. I was then, and still am now, not interested in messing with his students. I published a book answering King's major positions; it has been extremely popular and will soon come out in an entirely new format. I see no need to waste further time on the A.D. 70 issue, to any significant degree.

Best wishes,

Wayne Jackson


Unfortunate. He seemed to be rather upset with the
fact that I even suggested such a thing. Oh, well.

Merry Christmas,

Darryl Trapp

Here is my response to brother Trapp:

I am not at all surprised to read this response. Wayne is, quite frankly, scared to death to debate me. He knows that I know his position inside and
out, and I also have known him personally, and thus his personal positions for years.
Wayne knows full well that Max King no longer debates, due to health issues. He also knows that I have had several public debates on the issue--more in fact than Max King-- and am in fact fully capable of defending the truth of

Here is an interesting tidbit.

When I challenged Wayne to debate me years ago, --actually I responded to an article he wrote saying that there needed to be some open discussions-- he pulled this, "Preston has no prestige," "Don is just a King wanna-be"
nonsense. I offered, and did obtain, a letter of commendation from Max King, saying I was and am fully capable of representing the preterist position. Wayne flatly rejected that and has consistently ignored all challenges.
Interesting thing is that in 1984 Wayne accepted an open challenge from Walter Martin to debate a member of the c of C on the issue of baptism. When
Wayne accepted, Martin responded by saying that Wayne was a nobody, and was not a recognized representative of the c of C. Wayne got letters of
representation from some of the leading c of C ministers, saying he was representative. Martin still refused, insisting that Wayne was a nobody.
Wayne wrote that up as Martin being an example of a man of no integrity. Yet, Wayne has done the identical thing as Martin! If Martin was less than
honorable, what does that make Wayne Jackson??

By the way, I know for a fact, that Wayne's book is considered to be a horrible response to preterism even by some anti-preterists. I have spoken with them personally, and when Wayne's book is brought up they have said they would not under any circumstances try to defend what he wrote! It is one shoddy piece of work.

You may feel free to forward to this Wayne if you wish, by the way.

Thanks for your efforts,

Don K

In contradistinction to Jackson's flimsy, insulting, excuses, we commend F. LaGard Smith for his willingness and courage to meet me in debate on the John Anderson radio show this last Sunday night, (Jan. 11, 04). We had an excellent exchange. Smith demonstrated himself to be a gentleman. Anderson extended an invitation to Smith to meet me in a two day formal oral debate in the future. While Smith did not respond to that, perhaps he will give it some serious thought.

It is our hope that since a man of Smith's status engaged in this debate, this will open the door for other profitable exchanges, radio, public or otherwise, with more "friendly foes." Such dialogue can only promote the cause of Truth.

psychopreterist's picture

I have also challenged Jackson to debate the subject about two weeks ago, as for him to be the defender of the coC Amill view in my series of debates on the archive and planet preterist. I sent the challenge through reason and revelation a magazine that Jackson is a co-editor on. As of this time I have recieved no response from him or any other coC member I have contacted (Bronger, Robinson, ect.) with the exception of Thomas N. Thraser. It is probabally a lost cause to try to get Jackson to debate. I am also wanting to get J. Paul DuBois to debate, who has written the most excellent refutation of Preterism in the coC.
Bryan Forgy

dufrdan's picture

Brian, please know that J Paul went home to be with our Lord last month. His able defence of futurism will stand as long as his writings are available.

While I disagreed with much of his writings, he was a dear brother who is missed greatly.

Dan Smith
Sparks, NV

dkpret's picture

I also did not know that Dubois had passed on. He sent me a copy of his work several years ago, and I had written some response to it that appeared in the Living Presence journal. I had also offered to discuss the issue with him, but he declined. I had heard he was in declining health, but did not know of his passing. In our ever so brief correspondence he had seemed like a gentle soul.
Don K

psychopreterist's picture

I'm sorry to hear that. Brother DuBois and I had discussed Preterism at some length about 5 years ago. He sent me a copy of his book, and I had included some answers to it in my upcoming book Understanding Kingism: A Brief Introduction to the Doctrine and Controversy of Preterism Within the Churches of Christ. I always viewed brother DuBois as a dear and honest brother in Christ. I am sad to hear of his passing.

blackpreterist's picture

Hey Brian,

I'm sure that you didn't really mean "refutation of Preterism" as though it were an "real" refutation, but I think I know what you meant!

As one who just recently became a preterist some months ago and only a few months after becoming a member of the coC, it's rather sad that all in the church who hold to realized eschatology have been accused of "Max King-ism." I've read very little of the Kings' works and their writings certainly did not "convert" me to preterism. In fact, I'm probably more familiar with the views of Mr. King's critics, such as Mr. Jackson and Buff Scott!

I wonder what Mr. Jackson thinks when those outside the coC call its members "Campbellites." I'm sure he repudiates the term, not only because of its inaccuracy but because of the principle behind it as well. But isn't the same principle at work when he calls those preterists in the coC followers of Max King? It's much like Mr. Preston's point that the same behavior exhibited by Mr. Walter when Mr. Jackson accepted his debate offer on baptism has been shown by Mr. Jackson with relation to Mr. Preston's offer to debate him on the issue of preterism. We are no more as preterists in the coC "Max King-ites" than Mr. Jackson is a "Campbellite."

Though Mr. Scott, unlike what I have heard of Mr. Jackson, somewhat responds to preterists in the coC (on Yahoo! message boards and by responding to questions sent to him from them in his newletter "Reformation Rumblings"), these treatments are far from an examination of the "real" issues. It is my hope that more in the coC, even if they do not arrive at preterism, would at least be willing to discuss the issues as F. LaGard Smith did on Sunday night.

Kenneth Perkins

Latest article on preteristarchive:


doughoist's picture

As a member of the coC, I would appreciate an open debate with Don Preston and any other notable represntative of the Amil view. Is there any way to get the email or snail mail address to Mr. Jackson to encourage this debate. It is important to test the spirits to see if they are of God. A complete dismissal of Preteism is quite inadequate. Not to mention, that I, as a member of the coC, have never heard of Mr. Jackson but Max King and DKP are both well known and notable. It may do well if Mr. Jackson is indeed is someine, he may do very well to get his name a little more widely circulated.

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