In the Name of Consistency

David Embury (2008)
"Where has your consistent preterism gone? God has already resolved the "death" issue, thus there is no continuance of death post mortem – that's the good news of the Gospel – the death has been dealt its final blow, and as a consequence God has no more enemies. In the Parousia DEATH being the LAST enemy was destroyed, and that pretty much covers ALL enemies – there can be NO enemies beyond this LAST one. Therefore, IF the last enemy to be destroyed was death, then regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks – God has no more enemies – from God's perspective. Having made peace through the blood of Christ's Cross, God HAS reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to Himself. So even if in the ignorance or arrogance of some men's feeble minds they consider themselves as God's enemies, from HIS perspective they are not; even Paul affirms this" (cite )

Ward Fenley (2008)
"Ah, yes. You must be referring to Sam Frost. Sam is a partial preterist, not a preterist. I'm not sure why, but he has grown more and more inconsistent in his hermeneutic. A lot of times this comes from pressure and a non-exegetical, non-covenantal approach to Scripture." (Responding to: "You know, regarding "the cosmological interpretation by so-called preterists" of Genesis creation, I recently heard a self-described preterist posit a future/physical interpretation of Isaiah 65 at a preterist conference. It would not be an overstatement, in my opinion, to say that the view he presented there represents a departure from full preterism.")  (cite)

If Full Preterism isn't True...

It is a sad but common tendency of full preterists to treat the view as the gospel.  In fact, Don Preston often refers to "the gospel truth of Covenant Eschatology".   Now, it is one thing to be confident that your personal theology is correct, but there seems to be a point where such statements cross a line.

For instance, it is commonly declared in articles and discussions that full preterism is based upon the Word of God ; therefore, if you don't agree with that view then you don't agree with the Word of God.   Likewise, it is commonly stated that Jesus taught full preterism ; therefore, if that view is incorrect then Jesus is a liar.  There are many such comments - so many in fact that those who leave full preterism often go to atheism, no doubt having been convinced of the truth of those statements.

Here are two examples of such bold statements:

• "if Jesus didn't come back in the first century when he said that he would, then you might as well throw your Bible out, because if it isn't inspired it isn't any good. "

• "If Jesus did not return, Christianity is a hoax"

There is something offensive to me about how these statements treat holy things like pieces of political meat.    They are irreverent, arrogant, and would probably be offensive to everyone in the history of Christianity except for the tiny few who have recently embraced systematized hyper preterism.  Imagine the gall of putting the inspiration of the scriptures and the trustworthiness of the Lord on the line over a system of eschatology that didn't even exist until roughly 1,900 years after the birth of Christ!   In all seriousness, there is a real wolf in sheep's clothing lurking behind such hardened dogmatism.   In some of these quotes one can easily get the feeling that if God, Jesus, the Apostles and the Bible do not conform to their theological demands, then hyper preterists would cast them aside as rubbish - just as they have done to their former brothers and sisters who have left the view.

"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)

"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?" (David Curtis)
 

IPIT, JESUS IS A LIAR, THEREFORE NOT DIVINE

Richard Anthony
"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 scripture?" (Scriptures Say When Jesus Would Come!)

 What that means is that when he told the first century believers that he was coming back soon, he really didn't mean it; he was giving them false information to keep them looking for Him. Can you live with that? If that was the case, what else did he tell them that wasn't true? Do we have a God who intentionally deceives men? Isn't it much easier to simply believe what Jesus said and believe that he came back in the first century, just like everyone said he would?  (Scriptures Say When Jesus Would Come!)

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. "

Ken Davies
"If the second coming wasn't in AD70, then Jesus is a liar." (Beyond the End Times)

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 Hochner
"Matt. 24:27, 37, 39 - Jesus repeatedly said, "So shall the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man be." The same theme is in this context. I want to point out that some Futurists believe the "double fulfillment" or "type/anti-type fulfillment" theory, a method of interpretation. In other words, the theory says that prophecy may be fulfilled in 70 AD as typical form but will be completely fulfilled, coinciding with the "final" coming of Christ in the future. This kind of approach is a questionable hermeneutic. They must prove that Jesus and the NT writers clearly distinguished between two different comings of Christ. How would the first century Christians living before 70 AD have been able to distinguish between two different comings? I have not seen anyone get around with this problem. They expected all this to occur in their lifetime. 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 70 AD (and preserve Jesus' integrity). " (Parousia : Coming)

Jesse Mills
"Jesus made it very clear when His return and the kingdom were to come. It would be during the lifetime of at least "some of those" He spoke to: "Some of you standing here shall not taste of death until you see the Son of Man coming In His kingdom" (Matt. 16:28. cf. Matt. 10:23 and 24:34).  If these things were not fulfilled in the first century as Jesus promised. His integrity is under serious question." (Waiting for the End)

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.. Thank God for the sounding of the Great Trumpet!" (With The Sounding of the Trumpet)

"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!"

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."

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."

"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."

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

 

IPIT, THEN JESUS IS A FAILURE

Mike Sullivan
“I will go one step further and say if one misses it here on their eschatology, they have missed it in the soteriology as well. Are you sitting there thinking to yourself, ‘Hey man I’m a Calvinist and understand my soteriology! Maybe I’m still working through my eschatology but that’s okay.’ No it’s not ‘okay’ and if you don’t adhere to gospel eschatology, you not only do not consistently believe in the sovereignty of God, but you proclaim a Christ who FAILED.”

IPIT, THE BIBLE IS WRONG

Richard Anthony
"There are those opponents who say that if you believe that Jesus came back in the first century then you don't need to read your Bible any more. I don't understand that argument, but if Jesus didn't come back in the first century when he said that he would, then you might as well throw your Bible out, because if it isn't inspired it isn't any good. I believe that the scripture is the inspired Word of God and therefore without errors. " (Scriptures Say When Jesus Would Come!)

William Bell
"Those persecuted (the living) would know by reading the gospel of Matthew and by the fulfillment (actual occurrence of the event) in A.D. 70, that God had avenged or vindicated them. By the way, all saints were told to flee from the city before it fell to the Romans in 70 A.D., (Matthew 24:15-20; Revelation 18:4). Not a single Christian was in the local city but all Christians living throughout the world were vindicated at it’s fall. Is the vindication of the righteous a local event? To limit this vindication locally would impugn the Scriptures. It would make Jesus a liar, for he testified that all would be vindicated when the city fell." (A Local Event?)

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?"

"God can tell time; God can read a calendar. When God says something is at hand it is near. For man to argue otherwise is to reject the inspiration of the scriptures; it is to impugn the faithfulness of God; it is to impugn the ability of God to communicate; it is to do the very thing Israel of old did and for which they were condemned! This is a very serious matter indeed!" (Inspiration and the Second Coming)

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

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!"

Ed Stevens
"If the imminency statements cannot be trusted, nothing else in the NT can be trusted. " (Stevens' Response to Gentry: Conclusion )

IPIT, GOD IS UNFAITHFUL

David Curtis
"God can tell time; God can read a calendar. When God says something is at hand it is near. For man to argue otherwise is to reject the inspiration of the scriptures; it is to impugn the faithfulness of God; it is to impugn the ability of God to communicate; it is to do the very thing Israel of old did and for which they were condemned! This is a very serious matter indeed!" (Inspiration and the Second Coming)
 

IPIT, CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE

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 say that I don't know how it all worked out than deny the absolutely clear statements of Jesus Christ and the apostles that His return would take place within their lifetime." (Why I Became a Preterist)

REGRESSIVE DOCTRINE

Stringing Together Numerous Unsubstantiated Layers

No More Need For Hope ; Hope is a Sickness

"Yomi said: If Preterism maintains that Christ returned circa AD70, then the resurrection (whatever the nature, and I will come to that later) took place then, and preterism has removed my hope and the hopes of millions of believers since then till today; has it not?

MG's Answer: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life.”(Proverbs 13:12).  "A desire accomplished is sweet to the soul.”(13:19) Yomi you should not be disturbed that Christ returned in the first century because that means we have a realized hope.  A delay or non-fulfillment of Christ would make the heart perpetually sick as a result of a defaulted promise." (Cite, #60)

Vastly Overreaching Conclusions Built Upon Unproven Propositions

Seeking Author
"If you believe the scriptures, there was a resurrection of many of the saints of old whose graves burst open when Jesus was crucified and they came out of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus and were seen of many in the city. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. But the above scripture was written after His resurrection, but before A.D. 70. A resurrection around A. D. 70 makes perfectly good sense. This was the end of the Old Covenant and the fulfillment of the promises made to the saints of old as well as the disciples and apostles. All of the apostles except John were dead by A. D. 70."   (Seeking Cite)

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

Larry Siegle
"The “new heavens and a new earth” does not imply that every individual living beyond the end of the Old Covenant “age” would be saved, and there is no evidence of any “outer” courtyard that once separated people (Gentiles) from entry into the “holy place” or the “most holy place” of God’s earthly, typical temple in Jerusalem. Now there is only the “most holy place” where God’s people forever dwell together in the presence of God, inside the confines of the New Covenant, as represented by the “holy city” the New Jerusalem."

William Urmy
"In verses 30 and 31 of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew it is said, "And they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet," etc. Now, it cannot be reasonably doubted that these comings are the same, for they are both comings in glory and with the angels, yet in the thirty-fourth verse of the same chapter our Lord solemnly declares: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished." As, therefore, his coming in power and glory was one of "these things," we are forced to the conclusion that he did come in glory within about forty years after the utterance of the sermon on the Mount of Olives, that that coming was a coming to judgment, and that therefore the judgment day came long centuries ago. " (Christ Came Again, p. 313)

THE MOST SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS

DOES FULL PRETERISM TEACH "A DIFFERENT GOSPEL"?  MOST FORMER FULL PRETERISTS SAY YES!

• Brian Simmons - Why Hyper Preterism Teaches a Different Gospel (2009) "Firstly, the concept of “salvation” endorsed by Hyper-Preterism is radically different from that which Futurists espouse. Historically, Christians have always believed that salvation involves redemption from the consequences of Adam’s fall. These include moral and physical death as well as indwelling sin. That is, we see the results of Adam’s fall as being not simply moral in nature, but physical and anthropological as well. Paul writes, again and again, that the “entire man” is covered by Christ’s redemptive plan (see 1 Thessalonians 5: 23; Romans 8: 11; 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20; Ephesians 1: 14)."

Is the Cross of Jesus Christ Diminished by the "AD70 Salvation" Myth?

"I categorically state that the physical object of the cross, wood and fiber, is not worthy of the love and adoration of Christians."

Tim Martin (2007)
"After all, the High Priest did more than just shed the blood of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. He had to go into the Holy of Holies (ascend) and apply the blood as directed in the Law, and then come back out (return) to show the people that his annual work on behalf of the people was complete. The preterist view is notably Hebraic in its view of Christ’s full work of redemption. Christ fulfilled all of the detail in the Law by A.D. 70."

//

"My comment at the end of this article regarding "the old rugged cross" was related to Todd Dennis' closing statement in his article:

"Rather, I pray that all such Bereans will be given the wisdom to understand how far from the received gospel the HyP view truly is. Perhaps as this concept being exposed to them, love for the old rugged cross will inspire a sincerely critical examination of the "salvation in AD70" view."

It should also be noted that the term "the old rugged cross" does not appear in Scripture. It is the title of a modern hymn penned by George Bennard in 1913. For those who will actually examine the hymn, which Todd alluded to first in his article, you will see that the hymn features prominent lyrics based in the doctrines of futurism.

Furthermore, there are no commands in Scripture to have "love for that old rugged cross." However, the Roman Catholic Church does have a long history in venerating "holy" objects as "aids to worship."

I categorically state that the physical object of the cross, wood and fiber, is not worthy of the love and adoration of Christians. Their deepest love should always be reserved for the living person who saved them and the God who is their righteousness." // Tom: "insipid idolatry of a wooden object"
http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=41505&sid=5582&pid=41496&mode=&order=&thold=#41505

[Ironically, it seems that the view which agrees that "the Law didn't end until AD70, and then ended utterly" is the actual insipid idolatry... focusing on natural events, as it does, regarding a wood and stone building (!) to the total exclusion of Jesus' continuing work as the telos/eschatos of the Law of sin and death.  The comments underscore my original point of AD70 stealing the glory of the cross -- a phenomenon totally unknown in the history of Christianity until the advent of Hyper Preterism in the 19th century.   Those who spoke of AD70 prior to then did so with the fall of Jerusalem as solely the effect of the coming of salvation, and not the cause.  cf. Eusebius  // Note also that it was the Universalist who finally blew the doors off of the coming of salvation in AD70 to every single creature ever created (or thereabouts)!  And this without any rebuttal from the "inconsistent preterists" TD]
 

IS FULL PRETERISM JUST A THEOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVE... OR IS IT SOME FORM OF CULT?

This may seem like an incendiary question, but it is a legitimate one.  After all, there are such things as dangerous cults, aren't there? 

"Dangerous cults are small splinter groups from mainstream groups which usually base their whole world-view on a single point taken to the extreme.  Sometimes their point is secular, but more often it is theological in nature.  Those within these groups evangelize endlessly over this one point, searching far and wide for single converts to that extreme point.  In the Internet era, that includes email barrages, message board spamming, and the like.   When those evangelists are challenged by those in the mainstream whose beliefs they seek to overthrow, they lash back viciously at those who would otherwise be kindred spirits, considering how close the views are -- apart from that single extreme point.  These types of groups are often prosecuted for their extreme views, but within the group this is seen as persecution, thereby "proving" to them the sanctity of the endeavor - and the threat that they pose to the mainstream.  Instead of seeing critical arguments for their inherently instructive value, they are dismissed as "hate" or "slander" - proving how personally the extreme point is taken by the individuals within the group.    Those who are more forceful and vocally ruthless tend to rise to the top in these groups, with the followers treating their leaders as heroes - the perfect men (or women) to bring about sweeping changes in the mainstream due to their powers of persuasion.   Anyone who is lucky enough to break free of the group is treated with scorn as a traitor, and is assumed to have mental or emotional problems from having done so.   They are quickly forgotten, and the reasons for their departure are rarely discussed, except when utilized as fodder for mockery.   Many of those who remain within the group for a long period find their thought processes changed so greatly that it becomes increasingly difficult for them to interact with the mainstream outside of discussion on their extreme hobby horse points.   No amount of losses --  be it friends, family, churches, husbands, wives, children, or personal peace -- are taken as evidence that some form of disorder has developed."

As familiar as this sounds to full preterism - but by no means all of it, and certainly not across the board on any one point -  I believe this question is worthy of further investigation.   Direct quotes will be placed here which may reflect or deflect from the investigation into whether or not full preterism is a cultic.  I know of full preterists who exhibit none of these characteristics, and so the attempt is in no way to besmirch the individuals within this preterist splinter group.  Just because someone's quote appears below doesn't necessarily mean that they are cultic... just that it serves as a potential bit of evidence in the overall study on the effects of joining the full preterist splinter group.

I must admit, it took me two years of being out of the group before such thoughts even crossed my mind.   But the cruel barrage against those who left the view and - heaven forbid - had anything critical to say about it after leaving has been relentless.   I have honestly never seen anything like it in my life... how quickly people can be seen as bitter enemies for simply talking about how the Holy Spirit has led them in a different direction.   The smears and insults against very sincere people - and the methods employed to silence them - has forced me to rethink the level of danger in joining up with this full preterist splinter group.

Samuel Miller (1841) "When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "old dead orthodoxy,"ť and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "differ from it only in words." This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions."

"Hyper Preterist Dementia"
Personality Disorder, Extremism, or just Bad Manners?

These days, it has become very common for people to leave full preterism and write about why.   Unfortunately, many of those still caught within the chains of AD70-ism refuse to pay close attention to the testimonies of these - convinced as they are of "the gospel truth of Covenant Eschatology".   Instead of soberly and carefully examining the sincere claims of former hyper prets, a systematic attack on the personality of the individual commences, as though by disqualifying the individual, the testimony is nullified.   Accordingly, in "Palin Derangement Syndrome" fashion, current hyper preterists publicly declare that the individual who has left their view did so because of emotional problems or just downright dishonesty.  In this, they completely refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there are numerous (yes, numerous) exegetical reasons to abandon that view.   Quotes are here offered to substantiate this claim.    Please allow me to submit my all-time favorite:

Virgil Vaduva: "I do not believe that Todd Dennis is dangerous, but he seems to be motivated by an irrational zeal which is clouding his mind and controls him and all he does. Good people and ideas are judged by their fruits, and so far, the fruits of “preterist idealism” seem to be hate, injustice and elitism. The very fact that a guy uses his personal life to rationalize attacking other people should tell you enough about his theology and his relationship with the Creator so that we can only pray for him to recover and do what’s right in relation to those around him, his family and people he is using to further whatever agenda he has created in his mind. Please either reach out to Todd if you know him, or pray for him so that he is redeemed and healed of his hate and evil plans."     (btw, this quote is getting close to 3 years old, so it not like I'm posting it all this time later out of bitterness or anything.  Virgil is an okay guy, and I certainly feel no hate or evil towards him or any other former colleague.  The bottom line is that full preterism, despite all natural appearances, is just simply WRONG. It is caught in the exact same trap that natural-focused theologies always fall.  Email me for details)

It seems as though those in that circle believe that if a person opposes the full preterist view, then they are given over to hate and that their testimony is consequently not worthy of consideration. The lack of any call for restraint coming from those in the HyP circle of leadership underscores the widespread consent with this type of extremist rhetoric.    Here is what one HyP wrote following Dorothy Anderson's recent departure:

Mike Sullivan: "I will say the same thing about you that I did Roderick.  I pointed out how there is no middle ground and that Roderick's heart would eventually get harder from his sin of rejecting and compromising the Word of God.  That is the road you are on.. And because of this, reading you (like Roderick) will end up being a complete waist of anyone's time." (PretCoz Yahoo)

 This tendency to protect the system at all costs -- particularly in seeking the disqualification of the individual (as though dislike of one's personality is enough grounds to dismiss their appeal to the Bible) -- is actually very disturbing.   Borrowing from the Sarah Palin "PDS" theme, and in the (non-hateful) spirit of "Dispensationalist Dementia", this tendency will be referred to as "Hyper Preterist Dementia".

• Those Who Oppose Full Preterism Do So Out of Hate

• Those Who Leave Full Preterism Have Personal Problems

• Those Who Leave Full Preterism Should be Ignored

• Those Who Leave Full Preterism Reject the Bible

PreteristMouse
“Wow. Do YOU ever stop to look in the mirror at the hateful things that YOU say about those who sincerely believe our Savior spoke the truth?” (Cite)

Virgil Vaduva
"I do not believe that Todd Dennis is dangerous, but he seems to be motivated by an irrational zeal which is clouding his mind and controls him and all he does. Good people and ideas are judged by their fruits, and so far, the fruits of “preterist idealism” seem to be hate, injustice and elitism. The very fact that a guy uses his divorce and personal life to rationalize attacking other people should tell you enough about his theology and his relationship with the Creator so that we can only pray for him to recover and do what’s right in relation to those around him, his family and people he is using to further whatever agenda he has created in his mind. Please either reach out to Todd if you know him, or pray for him so that he is redeemed and healed of his hate and evil plans. "  (Todd Dennis and his Cult of Personal Destruction)

EndTimesMan
“This has nothing to do with our discussion. You endevour to continue denying the timing Christ put things in. Once you come to the true timetables then the rest will fit. Your speculation is not impressive and actually speaks something else of you. You have no proof, do you?” (Cite)

Virgil Vaduva
"For an insignificant movement you put an awful lot of effort into slandering it and its proponents. I think you have some serious issues…" Why I Don't Teach Preterism. 

Mike Sullivan
"I will say the same thing about you that I did Roderick.  I pointed out how there is no middle ground and that Roderick's heart would eventually get harder from his sin of rejecting and compromising the Word of God.  That is the road you are on.. And because of this, reading you (like Roderick) will end up being a complete waist of anyone's time." (PretCoz Yahoo)
 

Larry Siegle: "There are three aspects to the events of A.D. 70 that deserve clarification in order to achieve a proper balance in our understanding of exactly what happened in the first-century. There are those who draw conclusions that are not necessarily the logical implications and therefore takes a person down a very long and dark pathway into error in their understanding of the Scriptures. Unless one is able to properly discern what “ended” in A.D. 70, in contrast with what “began” and therefore what “remains” his conclusions will be to take an extreme position concerning the truth."