Setting the Record Straight About the Stevens Preston Rapture Debate
As many of our visitors know Edward Stevens and I have been involved in a written debate for a LOOOONNNG time– far too long– on the issue of whether there was a rapture in AD 66 or AD 70. Stevens has procrastinated repeatedly, sometimes for months. One of his excuses was that I personally delayed posting one of my installments. Well, that was delayed, but as Ed very well knows, that delay was due to severe extenuating circumstances– and he said he understood. But now, he willfully delays producing and posting his affirmatives.
Now, make no mistake. Ed’s health and that of his wife Beth, has been bad. They have both struggled over the last two years with very bad health issues. Thus, it is perfectly understandable that there would be some delays in the production and posting of his affirmative presentations.
HOWEVER, and this is important, while Stevens has used his health as a reason for not producing his affirmatives, his health has not prevented him from writing lengthy articles and posting them on Facebook. He has also found plenty of time to be on FB engaging in discussions, especially any discussion in which I was being impugned! Thus, I have begun calling him out when I have seen his posts, on numerous FB pages, not just one or two. I have called on him to stop procrastinating and to get on with the debate. All to no avail.
On 9-4-2025, I once again called him out for having the time to write and post articles, all of which are intended to influence readers concerning the topic of our debate. In others, he has been debating without debating, but trying to influence readers by his “extra curricular” postings.
Well, today 9-4-25 on the Facebook page Preterist Debate, Stevens posted the following along with comments I have made concerning his procrastination. The reader needs to know that Stevens DI D NOT POST THE ENTIRETY OF OUR EXCHANGE! He selectively copied part of our exchange, ever so conveniently omitting significant parts of the entire discussion. And to compound the problem, immediately after posting part of our exchange, he cut off any and all discussion and comments! Thus, the reader only got his side of the conversation, the part that Stevens wanted them to read, but not the entire conversation. So, for the sake of honesty and proper disclosure, I am copying and pasting our conversation for all to read themselves:
//Work Continues on Ed’s Third Affirmative 9-4-2025
Progress is slow, and I have required an extension of time. I have repeatedly informed Preston via email of my health issues which are slowing me down. But when I posted some comments on Gary DeMar’s Facebook page, Preston and I had the following exchange:
[Don – Sept 2, 2025] BTW, it is past time for you to present your next affirmative in our debate and stop your obfuscation and procrastination. If you can find the time to make posts like above, you can surely find the time to honor your word!
[Ed – Sept 2, 2025] Don, I have the right to post on FaceBook anytime I wish, just like you do. You are not my boss.
[Don – Sept 3, 2025] I never said that you have no right to post on FB. What I pointed out is that you procrastinate and refuse to honor your own word about the timing of posting your installments in our debate. You said you dot have time time. But you find time to come onto FB and post articles aimed at my position! So, the point being that if you can find the time write articles and post them on FB then you should surely have the time to keep your word of honor! If not, why not?
[Ed – Sept 3, 2025] Don, I hope and pray that Jan and you never have to suffer the kind of debilitating health issues that Beth and I are dealing with in our ongoing recovery from cancer. Both of us almost died. Our recovery is slow and intermittent. Everything takes lots more time and effort than it used to take. These are definitely “extenuating circumstances” for which the rules allow extensions of time. You obviously have a real hard time being merciful to others. Your continual badgering of me is unbecoming conduct for a professional debater like you. Shame on you! Those who show no mercy will get no mercy in their time of need. And your time of need will surely come. Count on it.//
So, this is what Stevens posted. Below is the far, far more inclusive and fuller sharing of what was actually said:
Reply
Don K. Preston 9-4-2025
I have expressed my sympathy for your suffering many times and offered prayers for you and Beth, so your comment is totally inappropriate.
But you are ever so conveniently deflecting from the facts that even in the midst of your situation you are finding the time to write articles and to be on FB posting comments aimed at attacking my position. Yet when I call attention to this you tell everyone how sick you are and Preston is such an insensitive person for not understanding!
It thus has the appearance that you are using your situation as a convenient crutch to justify you failure/ refusal to honor your word.
1h
Reply
(As the reader can see, I have and do sympathize with Ed and Beth’s health issues, and have been very patient. However, it has become increasingly apparent that he is in fact using that situation as an excuse not to conclude our debate. So instead of proceeding, he calls my sympathy and compassion into question, when as I have noted, I have often prayed for him and his wife and wish them both improved health).
The conversation also contained the following:
Don K. Preston
I never said that you have no right to post on FB. What I pointed out is that you procrastinate and refuse to honor your own word about the timing of posting your installments in our debate. You said you dot have time time. But you find time to come onto FB and post articles aimed at my position! So, the point being that if you can find the time write articles and post them on FB then you should surely have the time to keep your word of honor! If not, why not?
During the conversation, Larry Wright chimed in to suggest that the IBV view and the CBV may not be as far apart as Stevens portrays it.Stevens responded and then I responded to him.
Edward E. Stevens
Larry Wright, No, in fact, the two views (CBV and IBV) are worlds apart regarding the resurrection of the dead. Here is the difference:
• CBV (collective body view) teaches that the eschatological resurrection was a spiritual-only change of the collective body (the church) from a status of alienation death into a status of fellowship life. CBV does not know of any resurrection texts which relate to the individual saint and what kind of individual body we will have in our afterlife. They teach that ALL the resurrection texts, and all mentions of the word “body” are focused exclusively on that spiritual-only change of the collective body.
• IBV (individual body view) teaches that the eschatological resurrection was the raising of disembodied SOULS of the dead saints out of Hades (Rev 20:13-15) to put on their new immortal bodies that were reserved in heaven for them (2Cor 5:1), and then go to heaven to be with Christ forever afterwards (1Thes 4:16-17; 1Cor 15:52).
As you can see, there is a HUGE difference between the two views.
Travis Drum, Rick Welch, David B. Curtis, David Einwechter, Eric Rauch, Ken Gentry
5h
Reply
Don Preston 9-4-2025
Edward E. Stevens Show me / us where any representative of the CBV denies that we have individual identity in heaven.
You continue to slander us without providing any citations.
William Bell and I have discussed this many times, wondering where you are getting this idea. Neither of us knows, and for sure, neither of us has EVER denied the reality of individual, personal existence identity after death.
You need to stop this slander.
And you need to get on with the debate and present your next affirmative.
Let everyone take note of the following. Just above, Edward Stevens says that the IBV view teaches that //the eschatological resurrection was the raising of disembodied SOULS of the dead saints out of Hades (Rev 20:13-15) to put on their new immortal bodies that were reserved in heaven for them (2Cor 5:1), and then go to heaven to be with Christ forever afterwards (1Thes 4:16-17; 1Cor 15:52).//
Did you notice that he said not one word about the Transformation of our lowly body? In all of his earlier writings — especially those attacking me– he has emphasized the centrality of Philippians 3:20-21 and the necessity for the transformation of our mortal, lowly, human body. But not now! Not in his comment above! You know why? Because in my second negative in our debate, I demonstrated that Ed’s own words refute his claims!! He destroys his own view of Philippians 3! Here is just a small sampling of what I presented in my second negative– which Ed has not responded to yet, even months after my installments was posted.
ONLY THE “MORTAL BODY” IS TRANSFORMED, CLOTHED WITH IMMORTALITY.
The human physical body is the mortal body- Stevens.
The mortal body is that which must be clothed upon with immortality- (NOT DISCARDED) – and taken to heaven.
Therefore, the human mortal body must be clothed with immortality (NOT DISCARDED) – and taken to heaven.
However, the bodies of faithful Christians are NOT removed from the earth and clothed with new bodies! (Note that Ed NOW SAYS we get a new body when we go to heaven – NOT A TRANSFORMED ONE- (4thNeg-#57). He has logically rejected everything he said about Philippians 3.
Furthermore, take note of the following, keeping in mind that Edward Stevens has — up till my second negative– INSISTED– that the human physical, mortal, lowly body of humiliation, must be transformed into a body like Jesus’ transformed physical body– per Philippians 3! BUT NOT NOW! Please read the following very carefully:
The dead do not have bodies to be transformed so, they are given new bodies– says Ed. THIS IS NOT the transformation of the body of humiliation.
✦ When the living Christian dies, our bodies ARE NOT TRANSFORMED, NOR TAKEN TO HEAVEN TO BE TRANSFORMED.
✦ This means that THE LIVING ARE THE ONLY CANDIDATES FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR BODIES. Yet, Stevens knows that living Christians do not undergo a transformation of their physical bodies into glorious immortal bodies that are then taken to heaven!
Stevens denies that the long dead and decayed saints had bodies to be transformed. Thus, they were not candidates for Philippians 3.
He knows that when Christians die and decay, our bodies are not raised and transformed. Thus, OUR bodies are not candidates for Philippians 3.
He claims that the only people who were EVER the recipients of the transformation of Philippians 3 were the first century living saints.
Thus, Stevens does not believe that Philippians 3:20-21 applies to Christians today– in any sense whatsoever! Yet, he continuously claimed that Philippians 3 was absolutely critical:
//The individual immortal body that Christ has in heaven after the ascension is the very same “glorious body” in which he returned at the parousia (Phil. 3:21). And since it is the PATTERN for the afterlife bodies of all believers including us today (See Philippians 3:21; 1 John 3:2 and 1 Cor. 15:20-23) then it clearly identifies the kind of bodies the saints received when they were raised out of Hades, and the kind of bodies the living saints had after their mortal bodies were changed into immortal bodies and translated into the unseen realm.// (2AFF- #9).
Yet, read his comments above again! He now rejects the idea that Philippians 3:
“is the PATTERN for the afterlife bodies of all believers including us today.”
No, we have here ANOTHER MASSIVE debate conversion! Our bodies are not transformed at all as Ed has previously contended! They rot and decay. We get brand new bodies! Philippians 3 does not apply to us in any way whatsoever!!
Anyone can see that Stevens has entrapped himself and contradicted himself and rejected Scripture. I am convinced that this is the reason why Stevens has procrastinated so long in producing his third affirmative. He KNOWS that he has surrendered any and all appeal to Philippians 3, which he has appealed to as the “PATTERN” OF OUR BODILY TRANSFORMATION!
As the reader can see, Stevens conveniently copied and pasted only the part of our conversation that he could make it appear that I am heartless and without sympathy. But that is false.
Edward E. Stevens conveniently copied and pasted only what he wanted the reader to read, and then, he cut off any possibility for comments! This is more than revealing to say the least.
I hate having to post this, but it is simply not honest for Stevens to do what he has done, calling my compassion into question, completely omitting major parts of what I posted in response to him, and not allowing comments on what he posted. (BTW, when Ed established that FB page, he initially made me an admin. However, after I challenged several of his comments, he removed me and I am not able to post on that FB page!) That is not fair, it is not ethical, it is not respectful, and it is not honorable.
William Bell, Larry Siegle, Holger Neubauer, Roy Runyon, Steven Baisden, Brent Bischel, John Watson, Mark Glenn, Julie Hand, Julienne Chambers, Michael Karris, Terry D Swift, Steve M Magua,
Setting the Record Straight About the Stevens Preston Rapture Debate