Rod Edwards

Rod Edwards Interview with Gene Cook on Unchained Radio
"A lot of times, Full Preterists become Universalists." "When you add all these things up together, with the Universalism, the covenant creation, with the poor character, with the idea that the law has been destroyed, it just got too much" "Between all of the theological problems, and the textual problems, and the character problems, I just cannot support that anymore."

Sam Dawson

Preterist's continue to make 70AD the transition line when OLD THINGS END, and NEW THINGS BEGIN. Since the OLD THINGS END (Old Covenant, Old Heavens and Earth, Old Age) pass in 70AD, ALL are then placed in the NEW THINGS (New Covenant, New Heavens and Earth, New Age). And it is interesting how these people don't see this as HIGHLY Universalistic, especially since in the New Heavens and Earth, the ONLY thing pictured is the New Jerusalem in which the tree of life resides. So if we are ALL now in the New Heavens and Earth, (whereby there is no darkness, only light), how is it there is not seperation from those who are not of God? Preterism results in ALL being found WORTHY to obtain the "age to come". They teach ALL are in the New Heavens and Earth where by "only righteousness dwells." 2 Pet 3:13.

Sam Dawson
We’ve seen the same thing in II Peter 3, popularly applied to a planet-burning judgment at the end of time. Once one sees just two things about that chapter, that 1) we live under a different heavens and earth that Noah did, yet we live under the same planet and stars as he did, then we must realize that the term “heavens and earth” is not being used of the planet and stars, and 2) when we take “elements” in that chapter to mean atoms and molecules, when it means the basics of the Mosaic Law throughout the New Testament, we must come to the conclusion that Peter foretells not the destruction of the universe, but the destruction of Jerusalem.

gospelthemes.com/res.htm

Hypocrisy of Preterism: Calling the kettle black

This blogs purpose is meant to be a critical blog, devoted to challenging all aspects of Preterism. Some of the aspects of Preterism are in fact heretical and some doctrines have many dangerous implications which is consistently shown throughout this blog. This problem is seen almost in all Preterist circles, and becomes visible in almost all Preterist writings. Some Preterists wish, that everyone would just put on their kind of glasses, based on the mistaken premise that they are right, and that somehow by putting on their glasses, the world would magically become a better place. This is wishful thinking on the part of Preterists. It is WRONG in my opinion, to not challenge doctrines, and it is WRONG to base an entire system based on compounded theories, deductions, and assumptions that prophecy was completely fulfilled in the realms of history. I purposely use the terms "theories, deductions, and assumptions" because not one scripture says anything occurred spiritually or naturally in the course of history. So as a Preterist, I must assume, or infer something is true, without a written word to prove it. This is not what faith is or how it works. Faith is not believing something that is just not there.

Full Preterists are quite aggressive and are quick to attack those who hold opposing views. They are also quite forceful and critical of those who disagree with them even to the degree of cutting off all fellowship. Everyone wants to debate you, everyone wants to prove they are right. Even those who hold a slightly different view are still outcasts. This is seen among Full Preterists who still see those who are Partial Preterists as a lower type of Christian, if a Christian at all. They certainly would have a hard time sitting at the same table. This past year Preterism has reached newest all time lows, (not because of the quantity of people who have now become addicted or infected with this doctrine), but because of the great division that is readily seen among various Preterist groups. I personally have never witnessed a more divided group that the sect who calls themselves Preterists.


Those who think my methods are off base, unchristian, or misguided, please refer to the movement who taught them to me. How to be right. How to not be taken captive by my enemy. How to focus on the weaknesses of my enemies. How to not lose a debate. How to misinterpret others viewpoints. And on and on the list could grow. This site is a reflection of the same methods and tactics that Preterist have used towards futurists, toward partial preterists, and even among themselves and it is true that the same methods used to build up a movement will also be used on this blog to tare it down. How appropriate. The rebukes I receive are just a reflection of calling the kettle black.

Historical Transitions from Old to New

It is shown in this statement how Preterist see a transition from old things to new things in the realms of history. It is often overlooked by Preterist that this transition from OLD to NEW really occurs as one passes from the OLD MAN to the NEW MAN by being born again, and is consummated when one dies and puts off "first tabernacle". That "first tabernacle" not being the physical temple of sticks and stones, but is referring to our fleshly bodies which waxes old and ready to disappear. (1 Peter 1:24) For, "All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls off . .

The transition period of the gospel consistantly transitions the of putting off of flesh (covenant of death), and putting on the spirit (covenant of life) and places it outside the context of historical fulfillment. Being born again is not something that is historical fulfilled or a past event. Being born again means dying to our old man. However, when we die to the flesh by being born again, or physical bodies do not die. Our physical bodies are still present, after we are born again, but our body is alive becuase of the Spirit which is in us. Those born again become a part of the new covenant or new creation, but the old covenant (of the flesh) remains in tact until the flesh has been removed or passes away.

As Paul says in II Tim. 4:6 THE TIME of my departure IS AT HAND. This statement can not be refering to 70ad but a consumation of physical death and entry into heaven. There is no escaping the fact the war Paul saw waging war within him was a war between flesh and spirit. Paul was proving that the covenantal transitions is not historical but the revealing a individual process of maturing ones faith to be found worthy and faithful to enter into the age to come.

Thinking about this transition as merely a natural process in history has many problems. First, it fails you and me, since it places this transition as a historic regeneration or transition rather than a individual regeneration or transition. Thus 70ad is what separates the old from the new rather than Christ. It also implys that the OLD has been removed for all men, and assumes that this process of transition is a mere past event. It also implys that since the old has been removed, there is no longer seperation from God, no more death, no more judgment, no longer a need to be born again, and no longer a need to be resurected into the presense of God. Making history the transition point continues to reveal the countless number of errors that compound the problem.

New Earth Christian Studies
If they were looking forward to something, waiting eagerly for it, then they did not yet possess it in its fullness. And yet, there was always a sense in which they already owned it. They had the down payment. It was not that the New Covenant had not yet begun: It had, but it was not in full effect, until the Old Covenant was utterly destroyed. They were free of it's burden of slavery, but until the first tabernacle was removed, the way into the Holy Place and complete access to God was not disclosed. The Christians of the time were in a unique position: They were living not just between covenants, but in the end times of the Old Covenant which coincided with the beginning of the New.

http://www.geocities.com/newearthcs/main.html

Walt Hibbard: Literally Fulfilled in AD70

This is actually quite funny! I especially love the part about "ALL WOULD TAKE PLACE LITERALLY" in 70AD!!! LOL. What ever happen to those who fled Jerusalem to Pella? IC, Literally, THIS IS THAT!

Walt Hibbard Article: The Expectation and Logic of a ‘Literal Catching Up’ at AD 70

The Second Coming of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead from out of Hades, the Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb – all would take place literally and coinciding with the Roman armies march, immediately after the tribulation of those days. For then “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. When we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:16-17). This was a literal “catching up” of all true believers on earth at that time.

preteristviewpoint.com/id64.html

Don Preston

And Don Preston says he does not believe Universalism to be biblical? Let's see, "darkness and death" destroyed in 70AD. The "New Day of Salvation" or the new covenant "fully came in 70AD". This can only mean that ALL MEN are now in the "New Day of Salvation" or the "New Covenant" especially since Christ returned in finality of judgment, and the "Old World of darkness and death" ended and was destroyed in 70AD. This again shows the failure of Preterism to fully understand the problems with using a line in history to seperate the old things from the new things.

Don Preston Article: The Day Has Come
The New Day was to come when Jesus as Messenger of the Covenant fulfilled the punitive measures of the Old Covenant in destroying his enemies in the day of fire, Malachi 3:1-3; 4:1-6; the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord. Since John, as Elijah, knew that Great Day of Wrath was imminent it therefore follows that the New Day that was to follow that Day of Judgment was imminent also.
I believe the only scenario that satisfies the teaching of the Old and New Covenants concerning the Dawning of the New Day is when Christ returned in judgment, destroying the Old World of Darkness and Death, II Corinthians 3. This patently was not on Pentecost; the New Testament writers, writing after Pentecost saw the Day as still future, but imminent, I Peter 4:5,7; James 5:7-9.

The New Day fully came in 70 AD when Jesus returned in judgment of the Old World of Darkness and brought the New Day of Salvation. The Day has come.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&Itemid=61

Ed Stevens: The age about to come is just another historical period

I love how Stevens says "the age about to come" was to be eternal in 70ad by maintaining it was a post-70AD period. How can something become eternal in 70ad? What was eternal by a historical period of time? It is also funny to see how Stevens describes this "transition period" between the new and old as if it was a dispensational line tied to the year 70AD. What Stevens misses, is the transition from the Old to the New as one is born again in Christ. The old man of the flesh (which is what all old things symbolized) is transformed into the new man renewed by the Spirit (which is what all new things symbolize). This is the transition process which never ceases and is in fact the eternal thing which Stevens sadly defines as a historic period. This is what the exodus symbolizes. It symbolizes our transition from the old man to the new man. Of leaving bondage, and entering into the rest in Christ. That which dies in the wilderness, the unbelieving generation" is not the first century generation, but the generation who resides in the covenant of death, whose desire of the flesh over the desire for God.

Ed Stevens
That 40-year period between Pentecost and Holocaust was just a transition phase between “this age” and “the age about to come.” It is “the age about to come” that was to be the eternal one. We have several examples of 40-year transitional periods in the OT (wilderness wandering, David’s reign, etc.). According to Moses and the prophets the transition between the two ages was not supposed to be eternal, nor even a long protracted period. Gentry has missed the significance of the transition period, and confused the passages about the transition period with those about the eternal kingdom.

http://www.preterist.org/articles/gentry/a_40-yr_millenium.asp

Don Preston

Revelation is about the revealing of the removal of sin and death (not the removal itself), and the revealing of life in his kingdom (not that the event gave eternal life ). Sin and death is the issue, and can not be destroyed or removed by historical events. This removal or posession can not be a past or future event that is removed by historical events. The destruction of Jerusalem did not place you in the new covenant, nor did it remove your sin, death or seperation from God. If it did, there would be no reason to be born again. You were or have been in bondage to the flesh (covenant of death represented by the Mosiac Covenant) and if you are in Christ, you have been born again to the New Covenant of the Spirit. How is this process a past event, how did the old pass in 70ad, when you died to the old by being born again.

Don Preston Article More On No Death, No Sorrow, No Pain
We believe the only view which does not pose such serious interpretative snafus is that which sees the New Creation as the consummated Kingdom of our Lord in which those who believe in him do not die, John 8:51; in which there is peace, Phil 4:4ff; there is eternal life 1 John 5:13; in which God's new people, Ephesians 2:12ff; wearing his new name, Is. 65/I Peter 4; offer up spiritual sacrifices in the New Temple, I Peter 2:5; Heb. 13:15f. This New World was consummated when God destroyed his old people, Isaiah 65:13ff, the Old Jerusalem; the Old Heavens and Earth of Judaism, Isaiah 51:15-16; bringing to a close the Old World (Age, Matthew 24:3) and bringing to glorious perfection, 1 Cor. 13:8, the New World. That time was when Jesus returned and destroyed the capital and hub of the Old World, Jerusalem, in A.D. 70.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308&Itemid=61

Sjolander Road Fellowship

It is interesting that this article appeals to redemptive history, but then goes on to say "Not all these promises were fulfilled in the physical realm and not all were therefore discernible by everyone." Am I the only one who sees this as ironic or better yet moronic? Preterist claim "redemptive history" but them claim that you can see it, becuase it is spiritual, or it is really in the eternal realm. I ask how is this redemptive history, if it is in fact spiritual, and can not be seen. If it is spiritual and can't be seen, how can it be a mere past event that occured in 70AD.

Stephen Douglas??? Sjolander Road Fellowship
Historically, we know that the destruction of Jerusalem took place in the year 70 AD. This event has long been recognized as significant to the Jewish people because in that year they ceased to exist as a nation in their promised land. What has been often lost is the overriding significance of this event in redemptive history. In the careful evaluation of the Olivet discourse, one sees that the AD 70 destruction was actually the culmination of God’s total redemptive plan. In this event are included all the eschatological promises of the Bible. Not all these promises were fulfilled in the physical realm and not all were therefore discernible by everyone. Some saw but did not realize what they saw. Only those who were looking with the right “minds eye” made the proper connection.

http://www.knowingtodaysgod.com/articles/Significance%20of%20AD%2070%20in%20the%20History%20of%20Mankind.htm

Stephen Douglas: No Future Judgment of All Humanity

Some preterist continue to show their historical focus which shows their narrow and natural thinking mindset. Symbols deployed in the parables have nothing to do with our hearts or about judging the thoughts of men, but are really just symbolic of physical nations, and groups of people. How much more can scripture be marginalized by Preterist who proclaim spiritual things are really just symbolic of visible and natural types. Not only that, Douglas excludes the possibility of judgement continuing after 70AD by saying this parable is NOT ABOUT "judgment of all humanity throughout history" Now, if Jesus is not speaking about the hearts of men, and is really just concerned with physical nations, and groups of people which existed long ago, what relevance does this have for us today. NONE!

Stephen Douglas
So the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats isn’t about a future judgment of all humanity throughout history — but what is it about? Chiefly, this parable is yet another proclamation of the irrelevance of race in the New Covenant. It is remarkably parallel to the parables of the Wedding Banquet and the Ten Virgins (the latter which Jesus recounted immediately prior to the Sheep and the Goats parable), in which the importance of ethnic Israel is shown to pass away with the Old Covenant. This story was meant to rankle the Jewish leaders of the time. For them, the only imaginable outcome of this judgment was that the division of sheep and goats would go straight down the line: Law-keeping Israel as the sheep, all other nations as the goats. Yet shockingly, in what I think is probably the primary point of the parable, Jesus puts all nations on equal footing, scandalously lumps Jew and Gentile together, and determines who are wicked and who are righteous based on His own standard, a right He has as the King Who came (cf. Daniel 7:13, “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.”). The discerning Shepherd distinguished acts of compassion prompted and empowered by regenerate believers from rote implementation of a particular race’s rules and regulations, discriminated behavior from ethnicity, and this is how the Shepherd determined who was who.

undeception.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/the-sheep-the-goats-and-the-judgment/

Ron McRay

Ron McRay
Since I am a heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic. We are fortunate that we can be heretics without any danger of being burned at the stake. The world needs a new crop of young heretics.

Since most of us are old, it is up to the young heretics to find new heresies to guide the way to a more hopeful future.

http://www.eschatologyreview.com/hereticneeded.htm

Greg Simon

I am not sure if this is a misprint "it has nothing to do with redemption in the spiritual sense" or if Simon meant to say this.

Preterist continue missing the mark on saying the OLD ended in 70ad and the NEW began in 70ad. They are trying so hard to think spiritually, but stumble over the use of the physical non-spiritual things which are said to really be spiritual. What is funny is Preterists can tell you it is spiritual, but don't really understand what that means. It is JUST SPIRITUAL, DUH! And that means what to me? How does just saying something is spiritual become a blessing to you or to me. How does it transform our lives into the image of Christ? If you are calling natural things (which are really just shadows) call them by what they really are, natural things. But don't call spiritual things natural things without doing some better explaining.

I would agree with Simon "The changeover from old covenant to new covenant is so significant, it forms the crux of the entire gospel message." But I disagree if he places this transition in 70 AD rather than a transition in Christ from the old man to the new man.

Greg Simon
The changeover from old covenant to new covenant is so significant, it forms the crux of the entire gospel message. There is no need for a global destruction - it has nothing to do with redemption in the spiritual sense. Only destruction of the old covenant has any real meaning for Christians. For the Jews (Israel after the flesh), their entire world, their 'heavens and earth', would be judged and destroyed. For the Christians (Israel after the spirit, the true Israel), a new 'heavens and earth' were to be created. Physically speaking, the Jews of that generation were to take the punishment on behalf of all mankind (Matthew 23:34-36). Physically speaking, the temple as the centre of worship and Jerusalem as the focus of the covenant were to be destroyed, left desolate (Matthew 23:37-39). But spiritually speaking, the way was paved for all mankind for a new creation, a new heavens and earth.

http://www.geocities.com/newearthcs/main.html

Greg Simon

Greg Simon New Earth Christian Studies
I do not presume to tell God what is fair and what is not. He, in his mercy and righteousness, will deal with people as He chooses. It may be that there is a punishment of torment awaiting 'sinners', but if there is, I do not believe the above Scriptures are where it is revealed. Rather, they speak of something at least equally significant: God's dealing with Mankind and the establishing of a New Covenant of freedom that replaces the obsolete covenant of slavery (Galatians 4:22-31)

http://www.geocities.com/newearthcs/main.html

Creeds of Full Preterism

After studying the prophesies and expectations of the people who received the words of Jesus and the apostles, we concluded the following:

1. The judgement on Jerusalem in AD70 fulfilled all prophesies of judgement in the old and new testaments.
2. Jesus' parousia was accomplished at this time.
3. The "end", "end of the age", "end of all things" and other terms all refer to the end of the old system of worship, rejected by God in favour of the new covenant made though Jesus Christ.
The judgement, destruction of death and the grave, the resurrection of the dead to eternal destruction in the lake and to everlasting life all coincided with this coming of Jesus 'on the clouds'.
4. Therefore, we today are living in the new heavens and earth, have immediate access to eternal life upon our own passing, and are citizens of the new Jerusalem, wedded once and for all to the perfect groom: Jesus.
5. Death, 'Satan', mourning and suffering are destroyed for us (True!).
6. Those who are not a part of this citizenship are cast out of God's kingdom, into the eternal separation of the outer darkness, having no share in the gift of eternal life.

http://www.geocities.com/newearthcs/main.html

Don Preston

Don Preston
n Matthew 24 Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the very center of the Jewish world. Referring to the passing of that system, and in direct contrast to his world that was to be established, Jesus said "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away," Matthew 24:35. You see, one world was to pass, the Old World of Law; and a New World was to be created, the World of Messiah. It will never pass away.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=61

Stephen Douglas

It is quite funny how Preterist think their victory is simply a past event. For those who have not yet taken up their cross, or for those who are still baring their cross, the game is not over, nor should you assume you have crossed the finish line. Paul compared his his life to running a race, and where his finish line was very near. I question those who maintain that Paul's finish line was 70ad. Read 2 Tim. For those who read 70ad into the text, you have done a great harm to what Paul was saying. If his finish line was anything it was not 70AD but at his own Calvary (when he too in the likeness of Jesus, died for his faith (martyrdom). He saw Christ’s victory through the cross, but by no means did he think he had yet obtained it until he too was poured out as a drink offering.

(2 Timothy 4:6-8) For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who "have loved " His appearing.

(2 Timothy 4:18) The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

This is the same picture in I Thess 4. We which are alive and remain (faithful) shall be caught up. In view of Paul's race, enduring suffering patiently, and then being received into glory at his appearing was not only his hope, but OUR HOPE.

Stephen Douglas
“Preterism is the only eschatology with a future: we’re the ones that don’t have to look forward to getting defeated and looking to Jesus for an escape plan. We live in victory.”

undeception.wordpress.com/about/

Richard McPherson

THIS IS THE FRUIT OF PRETERISM. Richard McPherson says "If we are living in the results of promises made to the first century Christians, then the law, sin, death, Satan (the devil) NO LONGER EXIST."

"HELLO, MC-FLY!"

Richard McPherson
If sin, death and the law are, in Paul’s treatment of salvation-history, interlocking realities, how can these powers be defeated in Christ’s death and still remain to be defeated in the 70 AD consummation of the age? However, if one already is free from the strength of sin (the law), and from the sting of death (sin), where is death’s power? For Paul, death is abolished when the state of sin and the law are abolished. The state of sin, the law, and consequently death are abolished when the old Covenant aeon is consummated, giving place to the New Covenant aeon of life and righteousness.”

Did the Second Coming affect everyone, both the save and unsaved? Did the Kingdom only come for a certain group of people or everyone? Was the judgment for everyone? Did the passing of the law and the destruction of death affect everyone? If we are living in the results of promises made to the first century Christians, then the law, sin, death, Satan (the devil) no longer exist.


http://www.charlescoty.com/user/Does%20satan%20Exist%20Today%20-%20Richard%20McPherson.pdf

LETTER OR LIAR, (WE ARE RIGHT, OR GOD IS A LIAR.)

LETTER OR LIAR! I really HATE these kinds of quotes that Preterists often use to prove they are right. It only shows their letter based appeal that is tied to forcing God's hand to to fulfill by the letter, or else he is not God. And the funny thing is . . . HE DIDN'T FULFILL BY THE LETTER.

So in reality what Preterist use as their argument for their system is either WE ARE RIGHT, OR GOD IS A LIAR. Could Preterists be any more arrogant??!! Could they be any more puffed up??!! Here is another link that has more of these absurdities. Kinda funny it is labeled REGRESSIVE PRETERISM.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/regressive.html

Virgil Vaduva "Most Christians, generally speaking, profess the inerrancy of the Bible and the deity of Jesus. If certain passages of the Bible are wrong, or if Jesus was wrong in teaching a first-century Second Coming, the entire Christian faith would be undermined by erroneous claims, erroneous Scriptures and ultimately an erroneous God. "Jesse Mills "If these things were not fulfilled in the first century as Jesus promised. His integrity is under serious question."

Ed Stevens "Either we have to say it is all future (and make Jesus a liar for saying any of it would occur in that generation), or make it all fulfilled at AD 70 (and preserve Jesus' integrity)."
Ed Stevens "If Jesus and the apostles taught imminency (as in fact they did), then a non-fulfillment destroys the inspiration and integrity of Christ and the apostles."

Ed Stevens "If Jesus failed to fulfill them the first time, he could not be the Messiah."

Ed Stevens " If the imminency statements cannot be trusted, nothing else in the NT can be trusted. "

Ken Davies "If the second coming wasn't in AD70, then Jesus is a liar"

David Green "To say then that the universal Church has preached a false gospel throughout history is to refute God’s covenant, and the power of His Gospel, and the authority of His Church. It is, in essence, to call God a liar. "

Don Preston "Can God tell time?" "If "at hand" time statements mean nothing at all, then God cannot tell time."

Don Preston "I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that either the Great Trumpet of the Lord sounded in that first century generation or Jesus' promise failed and man still has no escape from sin, from separation from God."

Don Preston "What if God Did Not Keep His Promises?"

Don Preston "Only if God keeps His promises is He a God to be loved, believed, and obeyed. If the God of the Bible is no better at keeping His promises than the repeated failed prognostications of the men mentioned above, then He is not a God worth serving. And, if Christ's apostles, supposedly inspired by the Spirit of Christ, failed in their predictions, then they are false prophets as well."

Don Preston "When men say something will happen soon, do they mean it may not happen for centuries, even millenniums? When men DO say something is imminent and the event does not happen shortly we say the man who made the promise was mistaken, a liar, a failure or a charlatan!"

Don Preston "The preterist paradigm is the only view of eschatology that affirms that Jesus kept his word on time. "

Don Preston "If Jesus did not do what he said he was going to do, when he said he would do it, then we cannot believe him, he said not to believe him!"

Don Preston "Jesus said the Great Apostasy and his coming at the height of that apostasy, would happen in his generation — it either happened or Jesus lied."

Don Preston "At hand" means "at hand;" a "long time" means a "long time." This being true one must acknowledge 1.) Jesus lied, 2.) He failed, 3.) He was mistaken or 4.) He came! "

Don Preston "The issue involves the Deity of Jesus. If there was a long temporal gap in Daniel, and Jesus knew it, but presented a message that indicated that the terminus a quem, i.e. the end of the vision, was at hand, then he lied to his contemporaries, and violated the text of Daniel's prediction. This impugns his Deity. "

Don Preston "Larry believes that Paul’s prophecy failed– or AT THE VERY LEAST he did not truly promise relief to the Thessalonians. Larry says Jesus did not come. He did not give the Thessalonians relief from their present suffering "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven."

Don Preston "So, if Christ did not, and has not come in fulfillment of Paul’s promise to the Thessalonians, Paul lied. In which case he is a false prophet. Jesus failed, in which case he is a failed Messiah. Or, if the promise REMAINS TO BE FULFILLED, THE THESSALONIANS ARE STILL ALIVE, BEING PERSECUTED, BY THE JEWS!"

Don Preston "If Jesus did not come in the lifetime of the Thessalonian Christians, while they were being persecuted, and give them relief from their persecution, then Paul lied to them, or his prophecy simply failed. He gave them a false hope of relief from their persecution. If Paul's prophecy failed, or if lied to them, then he stands guilty of false prophecy and his writings are to be rejected."

Don Preston "Which of course means that if physical death is the focus of 1 Corinthians 15, then Paul lied, for he said CHRIST WAS THE FIRST TO BE RAISED! In what way was Christ the first person to be raised from the dead?"

David Curtis "What is at stake here is the inspiration of Scripture. If Jesus was mistaken or if he lied to us then what good is the rest of the Bible?"

David Curtis "This seems like the simple and clear answer that holds to the inspiration of Scripture. Jesus did what he said he would do."

David Curtis "I submit to you that either Scripture is wrong about the TIME of the second coming and thus not inerrant or our paradigms are wrong about the NATURE of the second coming. Which one of those are you more comfortable with, an incorrect paradigm or an uninspired Scripture?"

Anthony Buzzard "It defies common sense to believe that Jesus did not do what He said He would do when He said He would do it. "

Harold Watkins "If He failed to do what He said He would do, as the argument goes, then His divinity is surely questionable."

Jerry Bowers "Is Christ a fully-risen King or is he a partially fulfilled prince, still waiting to be king? There are no partials; split, multiple or 2,000 year old postponed prophesies awaiting fulfillment by a (Perfect) Messiah who failed to complete the job within a 2,000 year period. "

Virgil Vaduva"No, there is no “niggling problem” that I am aware of. If there is a problem, it is in the hearts of those blinded by tradition, ignorance and arrogance. The same people who call themselves followers of Christ, waste no time in rejecting Christ’s words, making Him a liar. The same people reject the testimony of the disciples, and their inspired written accounts."

Virgil Vaduva "The decision about Jesus is the same, whether we are talking about His claims to deity, or His claims about the Second Coming. He was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

Ward Fenley "If Jesus did not return, Christianity is a hoax and every liberal anti-Christian professor whoever darkened the doors of a Cathedral is correct." "I would rather lack understanding of certain apocalyptic elements than have a supposed Savior who lied and generated the most heinous and deceptive of all religions. There are no two ways about it. Jesus Christ either returned or He is a monstrous liar and everything every liberal and skeptic has every said against Him is true."

Larry Seigle: "If you choose to live your life in HOPE of what lies in the great beyond, so be it--that is your unfortunate choice. I choose to live in the REALITY of all that was promised and to bask in the warm of God's love and forgiveness here and NOW. "

Jerry Bowers "There are no partials; split, multiple or 2,000 year old postponed prophesies awaiting fulfillment by a (Perfect) Messiah who failed to complete the job within a 2,000 year period. "

Jerry Bowers "Was Christ a liar? Was he a false prophet? Did he make predictions of things that didn’t come true? When he said they would? The way he said they would? Is Matthew 24’s “The Olivet Discourse” simply a bunch of metaphors that don’t really mean anything? Is our being here proof that Christ lied because he had predicted the end of the world would come before now? "

Jerry Bowers "If you believe the warnings of Christ & John the Baptist who both said “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” meant it was eventually coming or that it was about to but failed? "

Stephen Douglas "Not only does futurism needlessly make Christianity a laughingstock with its endless failed predictions, it’s based solely on a ludicrous hermeneutic for Scripture interpretation that undermines even our Lord’s own credibility. "

"If your theology says that God failed, you need to change your theology."

"Either they misunderstood Jesus and incorrectly expected the Parousia or they correctly understood Him and He didn't return, both making the bible an unreliable text. Or they did correctly understand Him and He returned when He said He would! Anything short of the latter view ends up with a non-reliable bible. "

Ron Osborne "With all of the so-called Christians in thisnation who abuse the name of God by denying His sovereignty over allthings (even their salvation - Free-Willy-ism is foolishness), as well as deny His return in A.D. 70 and the consummation of His Kingdom, as if to put all these events into the future, making God/Christ/Apostles a group of liars, aggravating wars in the name ofPre, Post or Mid-Trib Theologies and/or Dispensation-al-ism, Futurismor modern Crusades and Inquisitions (all supposedly in the name ofGod), who do you think God will give such a retched nation and peoplewho falsely misrepresent Him? "

Sam Frost "Since the Bible does not lie, nor can it contradict itself, if it says something is going to happen, then it is going to happen, and if it does not happen, then the Bible is false. "

Don Preston "Since he did not establish that kind of kingdom, they, just like the Jews of Jesus’ day, believe that something went wrong, something failed, so, the actual kingdom promise got postponed, delayed, and the church, as "Plan B" was established instead."

Ed Stevens "Was Jesus literally wrong? Did He make numerous time-restricted predictions that did not come true?"

Chuck Coty"If Jesus (the Groom) was unfaithful to those (the Bride of Christ) that received these many imminent promises, then what type of catastrophic effect would you have expected to see? Would the Gospel have proliferated so significantly into the 2nd century if the Christ-followers believed they had been duped?"

Ward Fenley "Were Jesus Christ and the apostles mistaken? If so, then Christianity must inevitably be a farce."

Donald Hochner: A Period of Transition OUTWARD IN 70AD, AND NOT INWARD IN CHRIST

Hochner, like many Preterist states that it was the Mosaic Age (OC) is done away in 70ad. This Mosaic Age was representative of the "present Jerusalem" which was in bondage and cast out in 70AD. Now, lets just forget about the cross and the resurrection which is symbolically representative of our being set free from bondage to sin (manifested within, by being born again), and let focus on the errors of placing this fulfillment in 70ad. Hochner like most Preterist say that the "new covenant" age came into being "since 70 AD". The fallacy of this argument is that ALL MEN are now free since the bondage to the LAW was removed in 70AD. IF bondage still remains after 70AD (and it does), I ask what passed away in 70AD to remove this bondage in 70AD??? If there is now no more bondage to sin and everyone is now in the New Covenant Age (a post 70ad historical period), then all men are now in new covenant. Let's forget that Paul taught that the present Jerusalem was representative or an allegory of those in bondage to sin, and lets make a huge assumption that that passes away in 70ad. See how the devil is using this to mislead the masses!!!

Again, how can the rubble from sticks and stones magically remove the bondage to the flesh and set men free? How did your bondage to sin pass away in 70ad for sins not yet committed? How are those who are outside of Christ, find themselves in the age to come whereby only those found worthy are allowed to enter in?

The historical line in 70ad is to blame for the erroneous theories that Preterists have made.


Donald Hochner
In these passages in the NT, we have two ages in contrast: "This age" and the "age to come." The expression "age to come" implies that "this age" must come to end. Will the "age to come" also have an end? If not, then the expression "last days" must apply to the closing period of "this age." So, in the end of "this age" (the Old Covenant) (WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY "THIS AGE" IS THE "OLD COVENANT"?) is when God's eschatological program will be completed or consummated. In other words, time was divided by the Jews into two great periods, the Mosaic Age and the Messianic Age. The Mosaic Age is done away and we have been in the age of the Messianic administration of the new covenant SINCE 70 AD. Hence, from 30-70 AD (40 years = a generation), the church was in the A PERIOD OF TRANSITION, changing from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. It is the period of the bondwoman (Hagar is Mt. Sinai) and the free woman (Sarah is the Jerusalem above). Read Gal. 4:21-31. The bondwoman (Israel) was cast out (70 AD) and we are children of the free woman (Church).


charlescoty.com/user/Part%2005%20-%20Aion%20-%20Donald%20Hochner.pdf

Ron McRay

So close but yet so far away. . . . fulfilled in ad70 ... yet only "relevant" today. tisk, tisk

Ron McRay
As many people as have opened the door to Jesus, HE HAS COME! There have been thousands of individuals who have opened the door to show Jesus HAS COME into their lives. Now we can understand why the Bible neither speaks of the second coming of Jesus, nor of His final coming. As long as planet earth stands, and people continue to exist on it, will there not be additional comings of Jesus?

The second coming of Jesus occurred many centuries ago, but we cannot identify it from the scriptures. When man ceases to exist on this planet, at that time there will be a final coming of Jesus into the heart of that last human being who hears His voice and opens the door of his heart. But, it is not mentioned in the scriptures, and from them we cannot identify it.

Let us be joyful that when we open the door of our hearts, Jesus can and will still come. The passage, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" [Rev. 22:20], even though fulfilled in AD 70, is still relevant to anyone today who is listening to the call of YHVH God.

http://www.eschatologyreview.com/whatdo.htm

John Noe: AD70 Final Coming is a Dumb Idea

John Noe
"The revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1) has a fuller significance and deeper character beyond its AD 70 eschatological fulfillment. Consequently, the preterist notion that it only applies to AD 70 when Christ supposedly came in “finality” is a weakness to be amended. And in a preterist-idealist synthesis, the strength of idealism remains that it “secures its relevance for all periods of the church’s history.” But its major weakness—i.e. “its refusal to see a firm historical anchorage”— is removed. That missing anchorage is supplied by Revelation’s A.D-70 fulfillment."

thoughtsofalesser.blogspot.com/2007/09/preterism-idealism-i-think-i-like-it.html

L.Ray Smith


L.Ray Smith
THE BOOK OF REVELATION IS TO ALL CHURCHES, IN ALL GENERATIONS, FOR ALL WHO READ THIS PROPHECY, WHEN JESUS OPENS IT TO THEM, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME (which comes quickly and is over shortly)!


http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/church-heresy-before-bible-errors/#comment-2886

David Curtis: No future coming or prophecy yet to be fulfilled

How can Preterist maintain that fulfillment is "ongoing" when they make statements like this "There is no future coming or any other prophecy yet to be fulfilled". To say fulfillment is "ongoing" seems like a total contradiction to what Curtis says in this quote.

David Curtis
"All prophecy was fulfilled in AD. 70. There is no future coming or any other prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=323&Itemid=61

David Curtis: Timing Determined Nature

TIME DEFINES NATURE????? WHAT?

David Curtis
"If you are going to believe what Jesus is saying here, If you are going to hold to the TIME of his second coming, you are going to have to have a paradigm shift in your view of the NATURE of the second coming."

"This same thing is true with the second coming of Christ. We must determine its NATURE based upon the TIME of the first century fulfillment."

https://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=323&Itemid=61

Jerry Bowers: TIMING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT

Spoken like a true Preterist. The words clearly speak for themselves.

Jerry Bowers
I personally believe the TIMING is the most important aspect. We don't HAVE TO KNOW the details. Christ said when these END TIME events would occur, believe HIM & HIS WORDS on the TIMING. Don't get caught up in having to know all the details or having to be right on everything.

freewebs.com/gapevangelising/inhousewarroom.htm

Ed Ferner: Present Age Ended in 70AD

Ferner accurately expresses the Preterist view by stating "This present age" is the Old Covenant and ended theologically at the cross and was completed in actuality at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70." He sees 70ad is the ending point to the "present age" and I can only assume that he also maintains that the ungodly also have been found "worthy" to obtain the age to come which he calls the new covenant. Preterist continue to seem to omit this fact because clearly they see the New Heavens and Earth and the Age to Come as a post-70ad period of time. This view is highly Universalistic because 70AD is a temporal line which separates the old things from the new, instead of being a transition from earthly to heavenly, from earthly to heavenly, from flesh to spiritual. Thus they assume that the new things are really just another historical period of time.

Ed Ferner "In the Scriptures, the two ages are contrasted against each other. "This age" is contrasted with "the age to come." In order to read and understand the Scriptures it is imperative to have a grasp of the use of these expressions and what they mean. An initial examination of these two phrases should lead to the following conclusions. The phrase "age to come" implies that the age spoken of has not yet come and is distinct from whatever the present age entails. It also makes a statement that whatever the "this age" represents, it requires that "this age" has to have an ending to it. Since the "age to come" nowhere in the Scriptures is said to have an end, then the phrase "the last days" in the Scriptures must apply to the end of the "this age" time period or the Old Covenant. The end of the "this age" (Old Covenant) time period then becomes the time when God's eschatological program of events would be fulfilled.

"This present age" is the Old Covenant and ended theologically at the cross and was completed in actuality at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. "The age to come," although spoken of as a future event in the Scriptures, was the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. This is no longer a "future event" but a present reality in the life of the Christian today, having taken place at the cross and consummated in AD 70."

christeternalchristianchurch.com/positionpaper9.htm

William Bell: If Jesus did not come in AD 70, The Holy Spirit is a LIAR? And YET Bell says Christ's Coming is Personal

I would agree with the majority of the statement below by William Bell. I believe the kingdom is spiritual and is and only found within the heart. I believe the kingdom can not be observered as in a outward event. I believe the kingdom can not be a here it is . . . or there it is. . ., but does Bell really believe this? Bell contradicts himself throughout this book used 70ad as the point in time where Christ came in finality, yet says Christ's coming is personal "a coming in you". Although he says that it is spiritual, he is in effect saying "here it is. . . or there it is. . ." because he places the fulfillment it in the context of historical events in 70ad. Not only that, he maintains that this is the FINAL and ONLY Parousia. He then makes it sound like if you don't follow after his viewpoint that 70ad is really when the fulfillment occurred, that you make the Holy Spirit a liar. As if the kingdom and coming were without, rather than within. Now if Bell really maintains that the kingdom is within and spiritual, how was this so in 70ad? How is it he is not taking spiritual things and placing them in temporal boxes, and in effect making them non-spiritual? If the kingdom comes within, according to his view, how did it come within in 70ad?

Does Christ continue to come today? Bell says YES! Which completely contradicts "Christ's coming in finality in 70AD."

William Bell Book: The Re-Examination (A Review of William Jones "An Examination of the A.D. 70 teaching

Page 43-44 "The kingdom is spiritual. It cannot be observed by the physical eyes, so don't go looking for it in the clouds, said Jesus, because when the kingdom came, it would be "within you." Think about it for a moment. Christ comes in his kingdom. Christ comes in the clouds. If Christ comes in His kingdom and if he comes in the clouds, then Christ's kingdom comes in the clouds. But if the kingdom comes without observation to the physical eyes, and if Christ comes in His kingdom, how can Christ's coming be visible to the physical eye?

"That is why we don't say "See here" or "See there" because Christ's coming as the hope of glory was a coming in you. See John 14:22, 23, where Jesus explained to Judas how he would come to his disciples, but not to the world.

"If Jesus's coming is spiritual, then it can be seen anywhere in the world in an instant by those whose eyes of understanding are opened. Such was the case in AD 70. We can even "see" that coming today, anywhere in the world as many are doing. "

page 45 "And what about the words of the Holy Spirit? If Jesus did not come in AD 70, would not the Holy Spirit have lied? Could the words of the Spirit be trusted? God also confirmed the testimony of the Spirit by the destruction of Jerusalem.

Nathan DuBous: How were the Inner Thoughts Judged in 70AD

Nathan DuBous
How can God judge the world with an event like AD 70? It is said that the hidden things would be judged, the inner thoughts would be judged, the world would be judged. How is this possible through the destruction of a temple? And more importantly, how can we, beyond the "end times" (supposedly), be judged according to that judgment which came at the Parousia? I had a previous assumption; that chronologically every man living or dead or yet to be born was judged in AD 70, and that judgment was applied at that time forever. I believed that the effects of that judgment were felt throughout time. This was an easy answer to satisfy my purely chronological view of events of both the earthly and heavenly things.

God did not change the way man was judged in AD 70, man had always been judged by the heart.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterist/Idealism/dubois-nathan_06-03.html

Don Preston A Past Spiritual Resurrection

Preston believes that the resurrection occurred in 70ad which is EXACTLY the same problem Paul addresses of Hymenaeus and Philetus. This is a HUGE assumption on the part of Preston. First, if Hymenaeus and Philetus believed the resurrection was a past event, how could they not believe it was spiritual in nature. Preston is right to say,"They were not affirming the past occurrence of the end of the physical cosmos." And whose to say their view is not exactly the same concept maintained by Preterists. Their critical mistake was their claim that a spiritual resurrection was a mere past event which is a common declaration that Preterists make. It is very ironic that the justification for their system, which believes a spiritual resurrection is past is no different than that which Paul condemns. If the spiritual resurrection is past, how can we individually be resurrected. Was that not Paul's point?

Don Preston A Study of the Resurrection
In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul addressed the problem of Hymenaeus and Philetus; they maintained that the resurrection had already occurred. It should be clear to any thinking person that these two could not maintain with any degree of success — or a straight face — that the modern traditional concept of the resurrection had occurred. If the resurrection is an "end of time" event, then for these men to insist it had already occurred was to invite ridicule beyond measure. Why didn't Paul just say, "Look around! The graveyards are still full."? But if the resurrection is related to the death Paul addresses in vs. 11, it is understandable how these men could make such a claim and it be believed.

Since it is undeniable that the death of verse 11 could not be physical but must be spiritual, Hymenaeus and Philetus must have reasoned that since spiritual life was "already" then the resurrection must have already fully occurred. Had not Paul told the Ephesians they had been raised from the dead, Eph. 2:1? Remember, Paul was writing Timothy who was in Ephesus. The connection between Hymenaeus' teaching and what Paul had written to the church of which he was a member is very probable. Had Paul not told the Romans that Christ had delivered them from the "law of sin and death" Romans 8:1f? Had he not written to the Colossians that in baptism they had put off "the body of flesh," Col. 2:11-12? And had not Paul said in this very epistle that Christ had "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 2 Tim. 1:10? Surely the resurrection was past already. It is in this context that Hymenaeus and Philetus can be properly understood. They were not affirming the past occurrence of the end of the physical cosmos. They were affirming — prematurely — the full revelation of salvation.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=61


In David Green's own words "IF futurism is true and the Resurrection has not yet happened since the time that Paul wrote II Tim. 2:17,18, then preterism is indeed -- in the words of II Tim. 2:17,18 -- "ungodliness," "gangrene," a deviation from the Truth, and a Faith-overthrowing doctrine. If the Resurrection of II Tim. 2:17,18 has still not yet happened, then preterists are certainly heretics." http://www.preteristcosmos.com/if-futurism-is-true.html

Larry Siegle: How being bound by Historical Shadows Misses The Heart

Jesus said "unless you bear my cross, you cannot be my disciple. Mr. Siegle you are missing my point on the important of the cross. Jesus DID in fact die on the cross. My point is that discipleship is about taking up our cross and following Christ. This "bearing of the cross" which is commanded to be a disciple, is not a historical even but is in fact shadowed by it. When did you die to your old man? When were you born again and become new. This is the real fulfillment which Jesus commanded to those who would come after him? How is this process which you yourself became apart of tied to historical bounds as if those historical chains are what removed you sin, or brought life to your unborn soul. Did 30ad or 70ad bring you into God presence, though you yourself had not even been born? How so? If the old things are some how removed historically by the historical event itself, what need is there to be born again? Since the OLD things are no longer present? Preterists continue to assert that historical shadows are capable of removing the old things instead of the revealing of the removal of old things which can only be found in Christ. This is Universalism.

Larry Siegle "It is a hermeneutical mistake to look for Christ outside the bounds of historical fulfillment." The Divine use of time is a vital part of the redemptive purposes of God. Jesus came “in the fullness of the time” (Gal. 4:4). It was the purpose of God to operate inside the stream of space and time. The Cross was a historical moment in time. Given the “Idealist” hermeneutic one might conclude that the significance of the Cross as an actual occurrence was not really important–just the spiritual meaning of it. (NOT SO, The Idealist position is that the Cross is a Shadow of Our Death and Dying to the Flesh. So the Cross as a picture, of Christ in us, could not be more important) The same principle would also apply to other aspects of the redemptive plan of God such as the coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment. The event is diminished in favor of the meaning of the event when in reality both are significant from a biblical standpoint.


http://preterist.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/preterist-spirituality-is-preterist-idealism-the-answer/

Virgil Vaduva

How can we as Christians eagerly await for him to return if his parousia is a past event? The parousia and resurection (which are both spiritual in nature) must not and can not be past events or else you and I have no part in it. Redemption and Salvation also can not be past events. They are spiritual and not historical or temporal events. If you maintain that resurection is in your future, even at the point of your death, you can not and are not a Preterist!!! That view specifically places the resurrection outside of time, and in the same context as Christ's death and resurection. The Parousia and Resurection are singular events which are not subject to time, and they are also personal in nature.

John 14: 22-23 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

This shows that the Parousia is not subject to the point in time, but of nature. It is about crossing over from the temporal world (present age) to world above (age to come). This is the finish line that Paul sought for when he described running a race. The finish line for Paul could not have been "the destruction of Jerusalem" or "70 AD" but the reward for his faithfulness after his personal death. He saw his own Calvary as the gates to which he was walking toward to finally recieve those things which were promised.

Virgil Vaduva Article: The Ugly Side of Preterism: Self-righteousness and the Politics of Personal Destruction
Soon after, I wrote a series of three columns on Calvinism, discussing the reasons for which I perceive Calvinism to be wrong in light of Preterist theology. I concluded then, as I still believe, that the events of AD 70 had a much more ecumenical effect than initially thought. I have concluded that AD 70 brought about a comprehensive reconciliation between God and the world. (How So?) It is quite clear to me that the general thread of the Scripture revolves around God's furious pursuit of mankind, and His effort to reconcile and redeem the entire creation back to Himself.

It is clear to me that AD70 had a much more comprehensive effect on the world's relationship with God and the world's reconciliation with God. (HOW SO?) Of course, as I have stated several times already, I see a clear difference between salvation and redemption. For example, Christ's sacrifice had been already paid once, for all people. As a result, they all have been redeemed yet not all have been made aware of the reality of redemption. Hebrews 9 makes this clear: ...so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." In the Hebrews' author's mind, Christ had redeemed the world (to put away sin) and will appear a second time to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.

Did Christ "put away sin" in 70ad" if that was when he returned? How so when all that occured was the destruction of physical things (Jerusalem, Temple). How can a visible and temporal event like the destruction of Jerusalem, "put away sin"? What was it about this specific event that removed your sin, and removed my sin? Absoletly nothing!!!! "Putting away sin" means my sin and your sin, and that can not be removed, unless you are born again, and are washed clean by the blood of Christ. I am saying that you personally being washed, was not complete in the historical event of the cross. It was complete when you personally believed, and took up your cross and allowed Christ to come into your heart, and allowed him to "make his abode" with you.

http://planetpreterist.com/news-2473.html

David Green: The Heresy of Preterism

David Green
"For if preterism is a doctrine that is so radically other that it makes what the Church has always preached throughout history a damnable heresy, then preterism must be absolutely false. "

"If preterism makes the historical gospel of the Church into a salvation-forfeiting lie, then preterism must inevitably be nothing more than an invention of modernity; a damnable, liberal heresy. "

"However, as undeniably indispensable to the Christian religion and to the Church’s salvation as the fact of the Parousia is, and as damnable as is a knowledgeable denial that the Bible teaches it, and as destructive an error as it is to teach wrong things about it, the Second Coming is nevertheless not a doctrine that one must necessarily know correctly in order to be saved. We know this is true because, if it were the case that we must have a correct understanding of the doctrine of the Second Coming in order to be saved, then all believers would be damned except those who hold to one exact eschatological view. Since this is unacceptable, we know that an error about "the time and the nature" of the Second Coming, as grievous as it may be, could theoretically exist in the Church, since every such error is not inescapably "another gospel" that if one believes he cannot be saved.

A creedalist would likely agree with that last statement, but would maintain that preterism "crosses the line" between acceptable eschatological disagreement between brothers, and damnable heresy; and that which "crosses the line" about preterism is, as we said above, the degree of its deviation from orthodoxy."

preteristcosmos.com/pretcreed.html

Brian Simmons: Full Preterist Teaching Results in a Gospel

Brian Simmons
The danger of Full Preterist teaching is that it always results in a Gospel very different to that which Christ and the Apostles preached. But there can only be one Gospel, and it is the one outlined in the New Testament. Brethren, I've known 'teachers' who don't believe in the resurrection. They don't believe in the General Judgment. They don't believe in baptism or the Lord's Supper. They don't believe in evangelization. They don't believe in 90% of their professed Lord's teachings. Sounds an awful lot like they don't believe in Christianity! And yet all of their errors start with the failure to rightly distinguish between Mosaic and Adamic fulfillment of the Scriptures. Obviously, the only system that allows for a removal of the moral law is that which claims the General Judgment is past already.

bsimmons74.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-moral-law-adamic-or-mosaic.html

Michael Fenemore: Universalism is Irrelevant in Preterism, so lets talk about something else

If you see a Preterist walking down the street, be sure NOT to ask them how their viewpoint implies Universalism. Please DON'T DO IT because it is totally irrelevant!!!! It is a LOW BLOW, unfair, and downright unchristian to bring up any specific implications as a result of their own teaching.

Michael Fenemore
When contrasting preterism with futurism, the subject of universalism is best left out of the discussion because it is irrelevant.

www3.telus.net/f/preterism/articles/dwt/articles/universalism.htm

Ed Stevens: 70AD can be proven in a historically verifiable way

Redemptive History = Natural AntiTypes. Stevens again shows by this statement that prophetic fulfillment are temporal in nature. It is really amazing how Stevens believes that 70ad constitutes "verifiable history" when not one inspired writer documents any fulfillment to have ever occurred in 70ad. Most Preterists disagree with Stevens on this point, because they maintain 70ad was a spiritual fulfillment, as if historical events constitute spiritual fulfillment. Stevens focus is strictly on the natural events, which he says he can see with his own eyes (as if he was a personal witness). He is one who says "see . . . here it is . . .there it is. . . " when the reality is, it is neither. Redemptive history is really another way of saying that patterns are really more important than the true substance. Redemptive history is just another way to look on the outside visible things (ie the temple = type) and not see them for what they really are spiritually (our temples = antitype). So when the term redemption is used by Preterists, all of the spiritual things like being release from bondage to sin is really just being resolved through historical events. As Steven maintains are mere past events. So if you are personally struggling with an addiction, or realize you are a sinner, there is great hope for you to know that the destruction of Jerusalem took away your sin. Right?

Ed Stevens Article: Redemption—The “Big Picture”
Ten thousand years from now it will be even more tempting for humanity to dismiss Christianity as mere superstition of a pre-enlightened age. But the Bible relates a story which was developed inside verifiable history over a span of four thousand years. The story is too interrelated and systematic to be the product of deceivers or lunatics. God did it this way so that His redemptive plan could not be falsified on historical grounds, no matter how many years pass. For the redemptive plan to stand the test of time for all ages to come, it needed to be revealed and consummated inside history over such a long period (and in such a historically verifiable way) that there could never be any question about its authenticity.

Fulfilled Magazine Volume 2, Issue 2

Ed Stevens, Walt Hibbard

Stevens continue throwing darts at any natural events they can find to see if anything will stick. First it appears like he maintains multiple comings at two different points in time (one for the saints, and one for their persecutors). He also maintains that Christ's returned for the saints was somewhere between AD 62-66 (although he maintains he knows the Exact date). This calls for a very, very early date to the book of Revelation (before 62-66), especially since in his natural scheming timeline, John was still present, and had not spoke about past events. Now in all my research, I have found no specific dates given that would pre-date 66. I have seen many Preterist give a date of 66-68 for the dating of the book. If this is true, how did John miss such a important event that occured prior to him writing the book of Revelation. Either Stevens and Walt Hibbard are terribly wrong and have no clue what they are taking about, or the events of Revelation were non-historic events or future to him writting the book. If Stevens are correct, and John did write Revelation after those events occured, and John did not close the book saying they were past events, it would support the claim that these were not historical events that he saw.

Ed Stevens
The saints were being persecuted. Christ would come and give them relief (AD 66), and at the same time give tribulation to their persecutors. We are talking about two different phases of the tribulation, with Christ’s return in the middle (the first against the saints in AD 62 - 66, and the second against their persecutors in AD 66-70).

http://www.preterist.org/preteristQA.asp

Ed Stevens
"If the angelic armies literally seen in the clouds at AD 66 were the fulfillment of ‘every eye shall see Him’ (Rev. 1:7) as Sproul has allowed as a possibility, then it was also the fulfillment of Acts 1:11!" (Foreword to the new edition of James Stuart Russell’s The Parousia Bradford, PA: International, p. xii)

Hibbard also follows this same believe that the actual return was in 66 AD before Revelation was written.

Walt Hibbard
However, I believe that these verses were meant to be taken literally, and that the first century Jews did "see" Jesus at His return as Josephus implies when he records the angelic armies being seen in the clouds in AD 66. The literal rapture idea also implies that the living and remaining saints "saw" Christ at His return when they were changed and caught up into the clouds to meet with Him at the destruction of the Temple in AD.
http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id7.html


The book of Revelation was written by St. John between AD 66-68, in the final years of the Neronic persecution.
http://www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_revelationdate.html


I guess all that can be said is that John I guess wasn't a part of the rapture, apparently by their view. With AD 68 being one of the only the representation of the EARLY date among Preterists. . . let alone all of the massive amounts of late daters our there . . .

Kurt Simmons: Christ’s second coming were accomplished in AD70

Simmons shows his Preterism at even viewing the cross. He states, "The cross alone changes man’s standing before the throne and is complete in itself for man’s salvation." The cross is not complete in itself for man's salvation because the cross must be "personally applied" for one to have salvation. If the cross, or 70AD itself was sufficient, then universalism is true, because it is not the event itself that brings about salvation, redemption, or even the releasing from bondage to sin. It is in fact the new creation, of dying to the old man, which is the very image of the Cross that brings about the righteousness of God. The point IS, that the cross must be taken internally must be RECEIVED.

This is such a profound difference in how Preterist express themselves by idolizing the historical events... and minimizing the personal purpose to which all of history points. . . And because 70 AD is a historical focal point, and THAT is where the Universalism comes in.

Kurt Simmons
We believe in the substitutionary death and atoning blood of Jesus. Christ’s death triumphed over the law of sin and death, and relinquished the debt and bond of sin for all that believe and obey the gospel. Men must come to salvation one by one through the obedience of faith.

The cross alone changes man’s standing before the throne and is complete in itself for man’s salvation. The law of Moses was impressed with no especial power of sin and death not extant in the moral law binding upon all men today. Christ died to save man from the bondage of sin under the law of sin and death, not the Mosaic law; annulment of the ceremonial law was irrelevant in terms of accomplishing man’s salvation; removal of the Mosaic law was not necessary to defeat sin and death.

We believe the events normally associated with Christ’s second coming were accomplished in the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The eschaton was a time of world-wide judgment for the disobedience of man in rejecting the gospel and persecuting Christ’s church.

preteristcentral.com/pret-statement_of_faith.htm

Kurt Simmons: Armageddon SYMBOLIC of the persecution under Nero

Symbolic of natural events? Preterists continue to make history their focal point as seen in Simmons comments below. The battle of Armageddon is really about natural and temporal event that occurred long ago. It is interesting that Simmons chooses natural things to which this battle is symbolic instead of being symbolic of our spiritual warfare. This goes to show that Preterists continue living up to their name by focusing on mere past events.

Kurt Simmons
The battle of Gog and Magog, also known as the battle of Armageddon, is nothing but a symbolic depiction of the persecution under Nero; the battle begins in chapter thirteen, where it is given to the beast (the persecuting power of Rome) to make war against the saints, and concludes in chapter nineteen, where the beast and false prophet (the persecuting power of the Jews) are slain. (Rev. 19:20, 21) Hence, the martyrs of Rev. 20 who die for refusing to worship the beast are plainly seen to have been slain only after the dragon is loosed, and not before, for it is not until he is loosed that this battle occurs. (Rev. 20:7-11) Chapter twenty is a recapitulation; it retraces ground previously covered, bringing us again to the time when the dragon that had persecuted the church under Caiaphas, Pilate, and Paul in chapter twelve, was loosed from the bottomless pit to persecute the church again under Nero. (Rev. 11:7; 17:10)

preteristcentral.com/pret-warren-review.htm

Sam Frost: We are living on this side of the judgment

Frost continues to show that judgment is a mere past event revealed in his statement "We are living on this side of the judgment (after 70ad)." This continues to show natural thinking on the part of Preterists. Instead of judgment occurring within our heart of each man (which did not end in 70ad), Frost maintains judgment is really just historical event tied to 70ad. The natural events in Jerusalem's destruction is really the judgment that was reveal to John in the book of Revelation. Frost goes on to state that "death" "ruled over all souls" and assumes this was somehow overturned in 70ad. (Spiritual but temporal, right?). This proves how Universalistic Preterists really are. Now, in their view death is removed completely for "all souls" so really there is no longer any separation due to sin. Death is a mere past event. All are in a new age of life. His view that the ungodly are in the New Heavens and Earth but are simply outside the new Jerusalem is purely false. 2 Pet 3:13 maintains the New Heavens and Earth which is the Age to Come, is where righteousness dwell. Peter seems to omit that the unrighteous would survive the judgment or passing of the present heavens and earth. Jesus also seem to omit the fact that the ungodly would be found worthy to obtain that new age. Preterist continue to reinterpret scripture to prove their theories which are centered around 70ad, and have made natural events the substance of their supposed spiritual but temporal transitions from old to new things.

Sam Frost Article: Sheol/Hades: What is it?
I have written these things for some truths to chew on in your own studies. But, one thing must also be pointed out: the destruction of sheol/Hades. Revelation 20.14 states quite plainly that at the resurrection of the dead, hades is thrown into the lake of fire. The inhabitants of sheol are released, some to everlasting life, and others to eternal judgment. These are the “nations” that are spoken of in the Old Testament. God had gathered them together and he judged them before his throne. This was the “great judgment.” We are living on this side of the judgment. Now, one last nugget: Is 25.6-8, in the same context we have discussed above, looks forward to a day when “the death will be swallowed up in victory” (25.8). This is quoted by Paul in I Co 15.54. The “death” is clearly linked with sheol and the shades. The death ruled over these souls, all souls. Jesus, we Preterists affirm with the Bible, has destroyed the death entirely, and has raised out of sheol those who are his in his own body and made alive those on earth by his Spirit. Why make eschatology any more complicated than the simple good news that it is?

http://www.thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=48

Jesse Mills: New Heaven and Earth in AD70

It is really ashame that Preterist's continue focusing on the year 70AD where things end and things begin. Mill's maintains that the "fleshly covenant" ended in 70ad and was replaced by a new covenant world, the age of Christianity." HOW SO? Who is not within this new covenant world, if the old covenant world which represented the "fleshly covenant" ended? How can a covenant that is eternal begin or end in 70ad? Is 70AD WHEN God wrote laws upon their heart, by destroying physical nations, and making sticks and stones fall down? Can Preterist really think any more temporally and fleshly than to make these things temporal periods of time. Preterist miss the whole point to what the "fleshly covenant" represented and making it pass or end in 70ad which results in a HIGHLY Universalistic system in which ALL are in the new covenant WORLD. Mill's problem is that he applies the transition point from Old to New in 70AD, rather than "in Christ" where by one is born again from "flesh" to "spirit". To me this is a much more personal approach which is quite beautiful to witness as one is truly born again and leaves his life of sin behind (resurrection!).

Jesse Mills
Cleansing of the earth, casting Satan from his domain, the earth. John 12:31,16:11. Removing all his power and works. 1 John 3:8, Heb. 2:14. Annihilating his rule and power forever. Dan. 7:26,27. Thus allowing Christ to become the new administrator of earth, and ruler over all the Kingdoms of earth. Rev. 11:15, Mat. 28:18. Casting Satan into the lake of fire forever. Rev. 20:10-15. This covenant allows for the influence of the (people) of Satan to continue in order that man may remain a free moral agent; choosing good or evil.

When the fleshly covenant of Ishmael ended, and Satan bound in the lake of fire forever, and then Christ was given Heaven and earth as His domain Rev. 11:15, and He took New Jerusalem as His Bride, Rev. 19:6, then truly Christians can enjoy the reality of fulfilled prophecy in the New Heaven and Earth. And can know that the covenant made to Isaac and fulfilled in 70 AD began a new covenant world, the age of Christianity. Now the conditions of Eden have been restored. Isa. 51:14, Isa. 52:1-9.

biblicalfulfillment.org/id20.html

JL Vaughn

1000 year reign is really just a natural period of time of 40 years. It is a great comfort to know as Christians that the reign of the saints are simply a past historical event.

JL Vaughn They lived and reigned a thousand years.
John, Who are the they. I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
The martyrs of the period from AD 30 (maybe AD 63) to AD 70 each lived and reigned 1000 years. When did they execute their judgment? August of AD 70. When was judgment was done. August of AD 70. When were the thousand years finished? August AD 70. This is also the fulfillment of Is. 65:20

http://thekingdomcome.com/node/790/3108

Gene Fadeley

More natural thinking by Preterists. Fadeley thinks that natural events are how Christ defeat Satan. He says "in A.D. 70, Satan was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone." How much further from the truth can Fadeley get. If natural historical events are the defeat of Satan, then it would seem that after those historic events, Satan would no longer have power. Making this a historical event is highly Universalistic thinking on Fadeley's part. This is the major problem with Preterists who ADD 70ad to their system of interpreting bible prophecy. It is a complete unbiblical assumption stated nowhere in scripture. If it were discussing historical events, and God really wanted us to know this was historical events, we would have communicated it as mere past events through his holy apostles.

It should be noted that Christ does defeat Satan but not through historic events. Christ defeats Satan only by the transforming power of his internal workings of his Spirit. This is not a historic event but a in Christ event. It is only in Christ that Satan is bound which is what the workings of the Cross is all about, to bring about new life.


Gene Fadeley
Did Christ defeat Satan? In about A.D. 58, Paul told the Roman Christians, "The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." (Rom. 16:20) Twelve years later, in A.D. 70, Satan was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. (Rev. 20:10) His power was broken, he was rendered useless according to Bible prophecy. Satan can no longer take over a person's body and make men do anything against his will.

http://www.bibleprophecy.com/devil.html

Gene Fadeley

Fadeley says 70ad "was the beginning of the eternal, new covenant Christian age. Now I would think if something was eternal that it would have no beginning or end. So is the "new covenant Christian age" really eternal if it did not began until 70ad? I think not. This shows the natural thinking of Preterist making eternal things really just temporal events. If the Christian Age did begin in 70ad, and the old Jewish Age ended, does this not mean ALL men are now in the Christian Age since Preterist proclaim this is a post-70ad historic period?

Gene Fadeley
The 'last days' of the old covenant age were referred to many times throughout the Bible. The age that was ending was the temporary, Jewish, old covenant age. The age that was dawning was the beginning of the eternal, new covenant Christian age. They were standing on the brink of these age changing events. The completion of the 'last day' of the temporary, old covenant age had to be completed in order to usher in the eternal, new covenant age. This is a concept that is so basic and yet the traditionally conditioned mind is often so unable to comprehend it. If our age is an eternal age (Heb. 13:20), it can have no 'last days.'

http://www.bibleprophecy.com/end_times.html

Gene Fadeley

This is really a comforting thought. The bible was not written to us, but was ONLY written to the first century. The bible only had in mind the first century generation, since of course sin, death, judgment, ect were only for that historic time period. This kind of letter based thinking is what Preterist's continue trying to uphold. They continue trying to make the bible a historical book, rather than focusing on the Spirit which continues to talk, continues to guide, and continues to cleanse our hearts. It is all a historical book focused on natural events. If you want to understand what the book is really trying to tell you, you must understand who it was written to, what it would have meant to them in the first century. It is not written to us today, but is "someone else's mail." Right? This really shows how the Devil is using Preterism to make the bible irrelevant and no longer useful to us today.


Gene Fadeley
The letters of the New Testament were not written to us. Before you scream, consider what the letters say, such as; To Timothy, To Titus, To the Romans, To the church at Galatia, To the seven churches of Asia, and the list goes on. These were letters written to first century people and first century churches about first century situations and events. God has preserved these letters for us today for our learning, instruction, and comfort but they were not written to us.

They were written to first century people. We are in effect reading someone else's mail. When we read these letters we must understand them as they were written. When the writer told the readers that these events would happen 'soon', he was talking about events that were about to happen at that time in the first century. We have absolutely no problem understanding this principle when reading the Old Testament, why so much problem understanding it in the New Testament?

http://www.bibleprophecy.com/christian_books_mail.html