Return From Oz by Dorothy Anderson

Editors Note: Dorothy Anderson returned to the heresy of Full/Hyper Preterism in 2010.

As I mentioned earlier in my posts, I left the full preterist movement and today I’m presenting the first of a series of articles on why I left, what full preterism professes, how they get people to embrace their system, and what’s so unorthodox about it. No promises on the timing of these articles. They will come forth when I’m ready to do so.


When you battle full preterism, you often do it alone because there are so few who know the system well enough to come to your aid. For those who have left, it is often hand to hand combat if they elect to speak out, so many remain silent. Lack of knowledge in the position within the orthodox community leaves it wide open for a breach in scriptural rebuttal and full preterism uses that breach to further their cause. May I add, I certainly don’t profess to have all the answers. I can profess that while full preterism has straightened out some areas, I am confident that full preterism is not the final answer and creates larger problems than it solves.


First, no one who picks up Holy Scripture in study ever considers they could find themselves in a false (unorthodox) belief system. We are all reliant and believing on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth and He will. The problem resides within us and in our desire to share our discoveries with others that we can unwittingly let man influence our thinking. It’s so subtle that we just don’t see it coming. It reminds me of the conversation between Eve and the serpent in the garden.


Before I talk about the fatal errors of full preterism, here are some of the things that I kept in mind that I am confident were the catalyst to bring me out. I think these should work for other false belief systems and maybe you have some you would like to add to the list.

1) Keep studying with open ears and eyes.

2) Keep a list of unresolved scriptures where you can review it regularly.

3) Don’t ever try to cram scripture into your belief system.

4) If others tell you that you hold a heretical position, don’t take that lightly.

5) Don’t ever assume that just because someone won’t take time to reveal your scriptural error that they can’t.

6) Scripture should always be your plumb line, but you can not and should not ignore the GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES whose TESTIMONY resides in 2000 years of Church historical documents found in the creeds and confessions. *


*Important to note: On number 6, when it comes to the “end times” (eschatology), the Church has always held a “futurist position”. No one who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 took a full preterist (scripture was totally fulfilled) position. They still expected “something else”. To be honest with the full preterist position, you have to acknowledge that you are going against 2000 years of Church history.


Some claim that the Holy Spirit is revealing this truth to them, but what they are really saying is that for 2000 years the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to believe and promote a lie. When I came to that logical conclusion, I knew something was very wrong.


The problem resided in the fact that I didn’t know what Church history taught until I was declaring myself in the full preterist position. Full preterists will never tell you that their system denies the bodily resurrection of the dead. They will always approach you through eschatology in order to sell you their “timing” of events. There are over 100 time texts to deal with making their system alluring. AFTER you adopt their “timing” then you are placed in a position where you eventually have to deal with the resurrection, and among preterists, that has not been a simple resolution. The only way to make it fit into their system is to redefine or marginalize it.


So if you’re paying attention, at this point we have two major creed/confessional problems with full preterism.


1) A denial of futurist eschatology and judgment

2) A denial of a bodily resurrection


In case you think I made an error by not beginning with an explanation of what full preterism is or believes. Let me say, no full preterist will begin by revealing all the conclusions of their position, so I am using their formula of revelation. If I told you what they profess in total, you probably wouldn’t read further and like others, wouldn’t recognize it as they present it so you could be their next convert.


Also, know if you see the names covenant eschatology, realized eschatology or fulfilled eschatology, they are all names for the same “dog”.


I do believe full preterism is dying out. The reason: In order to have fellowship today and further their studies, a large number of full preterists have been reduced to embracing those who hold the full preterist position regardless of their other doctrinal beliefs, like denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, universalism, denial of the trinity, the emergent Church “truth can’t be known”, etc. I know that sounds nuts, but they are so convinced of their eschatological position, everything else takes a back seat, including sound doctrine.


As a final note to this first post, I would like to say that there is a variety of preterism now called partial or historical preterism. It is the belief that the majority of prophecies in the New Testament find fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. It is sound and is the historical position of the Church.


So, my advice at this point, should you run into a “preterist”, don’t hesitate to ask them if they believe in a future bodily resurrection. This will quickly identify what garden variety of preterist you are talking to.


More later….

126 thoughts on “Return From Oz by Dorothy Anderson

  1. Dorothy:

    Each time I read someone’s reasons for leaving Full Preterism, I am left wanting. I always see 3 things: #1) The need for the physical body to rise up out of the grave and be spectacularly changed. #2) Pointing out extremes some Full Prets hold and claim them to be a direct result or teaching of the belief: i.e. Universalism, all mankind was judged in 70 AD, Denying the physical bodily resurection and the Deity of Christ, none of which are exclusive to or a direct result of Fulfilled Eschatology. #3) The ever constant appeal to man-made Creeds and the belief that for 2,000 years, the Church has always been universal in all of its eschatological beliefs.

    I am a Full Preterist and have not adopted Universalism nor have I ever denied the deity or physical bodily resurrection of Christ. Christ was resurrected back into his physical body but the body itself was not resurrected. The blood is the life of the physical body and while Christ still bore the scars from his beating and the holes from the spear & spikes, blood did not run through his veins. Christ was the life in that body.

    Outside of the need for a physical resurrection, I have yet to see one of these ex-prets give one reason why I would leave my Fulfilled Views behind. I will only respond directly to one quote in this article:

    ” *Important to note: On number 6, when it comes to the “end times” (eschatology), the Church has always held a “futurist position”. No one who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 took a full preterist (scripture was totally fulfilled) position”

    My question would be how many eye-witness accounts (By 1st Century Christians) do we have of the destruction that took place in Israel?

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr
    GAP Evangelising
    Eschatology 101

  2. Hi Everyone,

    Meet Jerry William Bowers, Jr. from Deltona(?) Florida. Isn’t it Deltona Jerry? Anyway, he’s about 45 miles from my home. He showed up on the FP scene about 2 years ago. I wanted to attend one of his seminars that he was promoting, but after numerous requests, both public and private, I never could get a date or time, so his garden variety of FP is undefined.


    First, I would like to say this is the first in a “series of articles”. Before you claim to be “left wanting”, it might serve you to reserve dismissal comments until I’ve finished speaking.

    Unfortunately, your comments here are a very typical FP response. Cut it off and dismiss it without a hearing…and I can assure you that you already have. That’s a survivalist technique of FP. I did it and others I know did it also. It serves to show those here the arrogance of the belief system. You couldn’t have given me a more clear example – thank you.

    …eye-witness accounts? To be an eye-witness, I don’t have to view the entire event. I was in the World Trade Center in NYC….I know exactly what it looked like from the inside and outside. If I visited that site today, I could be an “eye witness” that it no longer exists and by gathering testimony from those who were there when it fell, I would be able to fill in the gaps. 🙂

    I do believe that Luke used this style of reporting in his book.

    Tell me – do you hold to Ed Steven’s rapture theory – that all the Christians were removed from the planet in AD70, then the planet was repopulated with new Christians? Or do you believe that the Christians who lived “through” AD70, did eventually “see” that “not one stone was left upon another” first hand and actually made the right associations to what occurred there?

  3. Mr. Bowers,
    You indicated that you don’t agree with those who have “The need for the physical body to rise up out of the grave and be spectacularly changed.”

    Have you seen me with my shirt off?

    Phil Perkins.

  4. Dorothy:

    I showed up on the FP scene 2 years ago? It would have been better had you said “Until about 2 years ago, I had never heard of Mr. Bowers” I am not new to the fulfilled view and that is what your comment was directed to get across. I have believed in a fulfilled view for nearly all my adult life and could easily say I was a partial preterist at 17 years old, I am not 45 so this hardly leaves me as a new preterist.

    As for what my “Garden variety” of preterism is, I’ll try to make it simple. I do not believe there is one “End Time” Prophecy that is yet to begin.

    I can only guess that “Garden Variety” is an attempt to show differences of opinion within the total group of all who claim to believe in a Fulfiled View. This is usually one of the first things ex-prets point out, in an attempt to show its cracks, breaks or weaknesses?

    I find it amazing that any “Garden Variety” Futurist believes that by showing these cracks, breaks, divisions or differences, this must mean the entire system is false. Need I remind how many “Garden Variety” groups there are in futurism?

    Pre-Mill, A-Mill, Post-Mill, Pre-Tri Rapture, Mid-Trib Rapture, Post-Trib Rapture, No Rapture, Historicist, Partial Preterist, Dispensationalist, Zionist, Pre-Wrath, Post-Wrath, etc…

    Can you name one of these divisions where all believers of that school believe the same thing in regards to their Eschatology?

    In regards to your ending questions?

    “do you hold to Ed Steven’s rapture theory – that all the Christians were removed from the planet in AD70, then the planet was repopulated with new Christians? Or do you believe that the Christians who lived “through” AD70, did eventually “see” that “not one stone was left upon another” first hand and actually made the right associations to what occurred there?”

    I can appreciate your need to further box me in so you can better define me than I can myself but I’d rather answer in my own words.

    I do not believe one living human was removed from their physical existence in a supernatural rapture whereby physical bodies were changed into spiritual or glorifed bodies.

    2 quick quotes for further reference: “Flesh & Blood can not inherit the kingdom” & “It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing”

    All who believe in and look forward to this “Rapture” and even those who believe the resurrection pertains to our physical bodies, add to the words of Christ & Paul.

    Pauls words become: “Flesh & Blood can not inherit the kingdom, for now but it will later”

    Christs’ words become” It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing, for now but it wil later”

    I believe the Spirit returns to God who gave it: Ecclesiastes 12:7 and I believe once there, it is there for eternity. I believe my spiritual body (1st Corinthians 15:44)is raised out of this physical vessel immediately upon physical death.

    Your redefining an eye-witness is very typical of every “Garden Variety” of Futurist. Knowing what the scene of an accident looks like before & after the accident does not qualify you as an eye-witness to the accident unless you actually witnessed the accident itself. Call a few Attorneys, Legal Clerks or Judges and ask them if you can be called an eye-witness, if you didn’t witness the accident.

    I find it ironic that someone claiming people should trust man made creeds, confessions and 2,000 years of harmonious agreement on Eschatology should also claim 1) Keep studying with open ears and eyes. The biggest problem here is that you are taking your information from others and not showing an open mind, eyes, ears, etc.. and just once I wish one of you ex-prets would show me where you get this 2,000 year history of absolute agreement on the Eschatological events.

    The RCC (Catholic Church) didn’t even come into existence until the 4th century and the Protestant reformation came only 11 centuries after that. In the roughly 2,000 years since Christ walked on this earth, the “Church” hasn’t been in unanimous agreement on anything in regards to the Eschatological events.

  5. Dorothy,

    You don’t know how I have longed for this day. For the readers, I was also a former hyperpreterist & a friend of Dorothy’s so seeing Dorothy come out of it is a blessed joy! What she has written here is excellent & an accurate depiction of hyperpreterism.

    As for Jerry Bowers, the hyperpreterist respondant I pray for him too. I recall when he first came touring around among the online hyperpreterists, looking for a place to fit in. What happens is that every new hyperpreterist “teacher/minister” has an ego so big that he can’t share the stage with another, so Jerry has launched out on his own. Jerry promotes his own hybrid-personal-brand of hyperpreterism but it is STILL hyperpreterism. It STILL goes against ANY KIND of Christianity that has EVER been. It should tell us something when pre-Roman Catholic Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Greek Orthodox, Reformed/Protestant, & Modern Evangelicals ALL AGREE on EXACTLY the 3 points that hyperpreterism denies. It should tell us that hyperpreterism isn’t really Christian at all & the more & more someone embraces & advocates it, the further they get from being a real Christian, just as Mormonism & JWs (& some would say the “Word-Faith” movement) are not Christian.

    Let’s pray for Jerry but I’m afraid the more pressing prayer needs for hyperpreterist “ministers/teachers” isn’t their theology, it is their egos. They suffer from Proverbs 26:12 syndrome (as all hyperpreterists do/did)

    Keep up the good work Dorothy — I look forward to future installments.

    In Christ & His Church,

  6. Hi Jerry,

    You said: I find it amazing that any “Garden Variety” Futurist believes that by showing these cracks, breaks, divisions or differences, this must mean the entire system is false. Need I remind how many “Garden Variety” groups there are in futurism?

    Jerry – you miss the point – FUTURISM IS THE AGREEING FACTOR – period….NOT preterism and we have 2000 years of brothers and sisters In Christ, professing a futurist belief. At this point I would like to repeat myself AGAIN – IT’S FUTURISM….Jerry. I have to say as a FP, I had a hard time grasping that concept and it appears you are also.

    Also, an FP who shows low esteem for the system of creeds and confessions can also not grasp that they are really mocking the beliefs of God’s children because that is exactly what the creeds and confessions stand for – a united profession of faith from God’s children.

    You said: “I can appreciate your need to further box me in so you can better define me”. Define ME! Jerry, I hope I don’t hurt your feelings here, but I could care less about defining “YOU”.

    By the way – “eyewitness” is your word – not in my text. I used the word witness, and you translated it to be “eyewitness”. I even narrowed my definition of it and you still want to misrepresent it.

    Jerry, I have another question for you. I went back and read through some archived conversations and you talked about the disagreements you had as a child with what was being preached from the pulpit. What was your response to that? Did you keep it to yourself or did you approach the minister with questions about the text? I’m curious.

    Because this is such an important issue you finished with: In the roughly 2,000 years since Christ walked on this earth, the “Church” hasn’t been in unanimous agreement on anything in regards to the Eschatological events.

    AGAIN – my response – yes they have! It’s called FUTURISM!!!!!

    Just a note – I use “garden variety” in all sorts of conversations, talking about kidney disease, politics, belief systems, etc. You seen to have taken exception to it. I’m not using it in a derogatory manner.

    Jerry, I do appreciate your responses here. I would like to hold out the hope that you will hear some of what I’m saying and it will drive you to reconsider your position.

    Finally, would you be so kind as to pass on your times and dates of local conferences? I would still like to attend. If you pass them off to Phil I feel confident, he will get them to me.


  7. Hi Mark and welcome,

    LOL – you have such a sunny disposition. Inquiring minds want to know – what quantity of drugs do you have to take to reach that level? JOKE – JOKE – just a JOKE….Don’t anyone get excited…This is like a retina scan to prove it’s me. Mark would recognize my style of humor anywhere. He want’s validation – he’s got it. 🙂

    I must say that you and Brian are two FP’s that do pull at my heartstrings, but I have to say my position is not governed by emotion. Please send my best to Brian and his family in China. I do worry and pray for their continued safety.

    I’m glad you responded. I think so often when opposing sides meet under these circumstances there is an illusion that all the dialog has to be cold, heartless and condesending. Your post here will allow everyone to see that there can be “friends” out there that we don’t agree with, but we like and enjoy. I must say that I would be less than honest if I didn’t say those are the ones I pray for the most. Nothing would please me more than to fellowship in unity, but that’s not likely to happen today. That does grieve me and I think you know that about me.

    Mark, you know what our differences are and I think I’ve been clear that I can’t go where you’re going in the texts. I know you’re convinced that you’re correct, but I am on the opposite side of the fence on this issue.

    I am going to talk about some of these issues, but for the time being, I’ll leave the differences between us – between us. When I do speak about these things, you are most welcome to join the conversation, but know that I will take no hostages and give no quarter and I would expect no less from you either.

    You know where to find me. Feel free to write or call anytime. Maybe I can talk some “sense into ya”. 🙂

    Love to you and yours….

  8. Hi Roderick,

    It’s good, hmmmm… it’s not good, it’s GREAT to see you here. I must say while I was very upset about your renoucement of FP, you did me a good deed. It served to drive me back into scripture looking for the errors.

    I hold to God’s timing and I was kept so busy last year that I was separated from FP and that’s what it took for me to see past that system and to grasp things you and others who left, had professed.

    For those here who don’t know, Rod writes articles for Dee Dee Warren’s site – “Preterist Blog” and he has The Kingdom Come website:

    There is a lot of good information there. Please check them out. I’m also hoping that Rod will join me in talking about some of the issues affecting FP today and how they are sliding off the slope of anything that resembles historic Christianity.

    Rod, did you know that emergent guru, Brian McLaren, had declared himself to be a full preterist? Funny, if “truth can’t be known”, how can Brian be so sure? I think he just likes the idea that FP is a “new age” thought. Pun intended.

    more later….good to see you here. I’ve missed your smiling face. 🙂

  9. Hi Dorothy!

    It is good to see that you are surviving all the family health issues and challenges. I haven’t heard from you in quite some time. I still often pray for your daughter, and do hope that she is doing better. Although, you may think my prayers meaningless now that may you think I am a Heretic, and outside the faith…(Joke). Did she ever get the transplant she needed?

    I must say that I was surprised to see this article, but I can’t say that I was totally shocked. I did believe, that at some point, you would return to “historic” Christianity based upon some of our conversations. I do understand how powerful both traditions and history can be. I myself grew up in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and had memorized the catechisms as a child and served into adulthood. I still have great respect for them, but I do not place them above holy writ. Like they themselves admit, “they can and do err”. Admittedly, I do find it somewhat surprising that seemingly you embrace these traditions and history over the scriptures themselves. Especially knowing how much you like an intellectual challenge. Although, I’m looking forward to being proven wrong.

    I do look forward to your forthcoming articles. If there is anyone that can save me from the pain I have experienced over the years from losing life long friends, and being caught in a damnable heresy, it would be you.;-) I have always loved your demeanor and generosity. I do consider you a dear friend, and would never ask you, or anyone else, to go against their convictions, no matter what I believed to be the truth. I am alone responsible for what I believe, and God truly does know my heart.

    I have always known that I can’t make anyone believe anything. I can only share the consequences of believing one thing over another. God alone has that power, and He shares it with no one. Ultimately, we are responsible for the decisions we ourselves make. I have seen the truly destructive nature that futurism has produced in the world we live in, and the atrocities it has produced in culture. It is my conviction that this belief system is responsible for the countless deaths of many.

    Futurists continue to make the claim that God would not lead the Church by His spirit into believing futurism for over 2000 years. It is my contention that we collectively have mishandled the Word of God to the point that we have lead ourselves into this “2000” year futuristic error. The Reformation of the Church in the middle ages is only one example of this truth. For one can make the claim that God led the Church into a 1500 year error by not seeing that it is by grace through faith alone (and nothing else…this includes one’s position in eschatology) that one is saved from his or her sins. At one point, most of the “world” was Roman Catholic. Many modern Christians today consider them to have a works based gospel, and damned to hell. Yet, we were once one of them. Would God so deceive the Church for so long? And no, I am not defending particular doctrines for or against the Catholic Church on matters of faith. All I am saying, is what Christ Himself said, “He who is not against us is for us”. John Calvin himself believed that the Catholics were “for Christ” and counted them as brothers and sisters. This even among the stake burnings.

    Even though I see error in both your and Roderick’s positions, I consider you both to be “for Christ”, and both my brother and sister in the faith. I would hope that you extend to me that same respect. For we all stand on dangerous ground when we call our brother or sister a fool (outside the faith), not knowing his or her heart.

    As you know, I have spent over a quarter of my life studying the Word of God on these matters. I’ve read thousands of arguments both pro and against preterism. I have done extensive research in ancient cultures and writings and yet I feel that I have only scratched the surface. Sadly, I haven’t seen any biblical argumentation come from Roderick. His is a “history” song that is quickly losing it’s melody. I have yet to see him engage us biblically rather than historically. I don’t personally believe he can or is capable.

    The Church has a relative short history of being wrong in many matters, and from my point of view, this one is no exception. This is why the Church, according to the Westminster confessions, is to be reformed and always reforming based upon the scriptures alone (sola scriptura). It is the final arbiter, or court of appeal, rather than history itself.

    I must say, that I am intrigued, and actually looking forward to what biblical evidence you can provide to support a physical bodily resurrection sometime within our future. I may have to invite Brian Valentine and Dave Green to these discussions if you wouldn’t mind. Perhaps, you can “save” all of us!;-)

    Blessings to you!

    Your (h)eretic brother,


  10. Dorothy! I am overjoyed. I look forward to reading the rest of your material. I am sorry I can’t write more right now but I am in a parking lot typing on my iPhone. I just heard the news and could not wait until I was at my home Mac. I am truly crying tears of joy for you. This stand will take much courage, but I am confident that you are a woman worthy of the task. Much blessings sister!

  11. This is a nice article. As an former Hyper-Preterist I see all too well the dangers of this system. A return to historical Christianity is definitely needed. This means studying the writings of men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and countless others who correctly the interpreted the New Testament doctrine. As my own studies continue, I begin to wonder how I ever came to adopt Hyper-Preterism. Keep up the great work!


  12. It is a great pleasure (mucho gusto) to be a part of your life again Dorothy, which brings me to the point why I wanted to post again. Mark went back & told a group of the hyperpreterists about your rejection of hyperpreterism & now some of them are lamenting that if only they had been nicer to you, maybe you would still be a hyperpreterist today. Here’s the issue — I PURPOSELY backed away from you for a time (neither being nice or rude to you, nor influencing you in any way) so that the work God would do would be evident & not just me talking you out of the “movement” (as if I could have anyhow :-)). So, truth is truth whether it is packaged with ribbons & bows or not. As a matter of fact, if someone is being too smooth & flattering with me, I immediately think of Rom 16:17-18 & wonder what the person is selling. Besides, perhaps some of the “nicest” people you will meet are part of cults — such as Mormons…because they have an agenda & are unrealistic.

    Hyperpreterists often get upset that people won’t just accept them as another “opinion”. Well folks, theology is NOT “opinion-based”, if it is, let’s all go follow that Brian McClaren fellow. He is full of “opinions”.

    Lastly Dorothy these hyperpreterists have called your rejection of hyperpreterism; a “charade”, “rebellion” against God, & “preaching another Gospel”. What outlandish accusations from a group that has rejected 2000 years of UNITED Christian interpretation against hyperpreterism & are nothing like ANY KIND of Christianity. And last but not least, the ever so “loving” hyperpreterist “leader”, Sam Frost says, “Dorothy, if consistent, should go back to mama Church”.

    Therein lies much of the hyperpreterist problem; they act like there is only 2 choices…maybe 3: Roman Catholicism, Dispensationalism, or Hyperpreterism. In fact, hyperpreterism by its very nature is an over-reaction to dispensationalism.

    But don’t be discouraged Dorothy by what these hyperpreterists are saying. Much of hyperpreterism is in the death-throes or being cannibalized from within. Such as what another hyperpreterist “leader” Ward F. & his protege, Tami J. are saying of Sam Frost: “I recently heard a self-described [hyper]preterist posit a future/physical interpretation of Isaiah 65 at a [hyper]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. — Tami J.

    Then Ward F. replies: “Ah, yes. You must be referring to Sam Frost. Sam is a partial preterist, not a [hyper]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.” — Ward F.

    So you can see, the “movement” is in big, big trouble when people are saying its “presumed scholar” isn’t even one of them. 🙂

    Anyhow, keep up the good work. I’m here to talk with if you ever want — you have my phone number.
    Thanks for the welcome Phil!

  13. Dorothy:

    I see you are not only one who wishes to redefine a word but that you are also one to deny using the idea or thought. I’ll remind you of your quote:

    “No one who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70”

    Those who witness an event are eye-witnesses! You used the terminology, I simply responded to it.

    Creeds & Confessions are nothing more than man made laws in the name of God. Exactly what Christ came to remind people that they had done.

    Jerry, I have another question for you. I went back and read through some archived conversations and you talked about the disagreements you had as a child with what was being preached from the pulpit. What was your response to that? Did you keep it to yourself or did you approach the minister with questions about the text? I’m curious.

    I was 7 years old and the Pastor was preaching on Matthew 24. When he got to verse 34, he felt the need to explain “This generation didn’t mean the generation they were in” Again, I was 7 years old. I read it and believed it as written. I did not approach the Pastor and didn’t give it much thought until I was 17. It’s been a wonderful, strange journey since.

    I will now choose to bow out of this conversation. I see Roderick has joined in and offered his arrogance, by accusing others of being arrogant and egotistical. I wil engage in no conversation with someone who tells me or others I am not a Christian and I will not further add to this arena where people are allowed to do this.

    As for your continued hope “that I will hear some of what you’re saying and it will drive me to reconsider my position”

    I’m not sure how long you were FP or how long you studied the position but I have been studying it since I was 17. For 28 years now I have done nothing except solidify my FP stance.

    Our 2009 Schedule should be out soon.

  14. Hi Jerry,

    First – I qualified my usage of “witness”, you continued to redefine it. Would you consider Luke a witness in the third gospel?

    Second – there are those “within” preterism who know the implications of full preterism being a lie. A full preterist who is honest with their position, can and must acknowledge this or be considered to be lying to themselves. This isn’t optional. Dave Green got it right. That’s why I have and still do respect Dave Green.

    The difference between you and me Jerry is that for the 7+ years that I was a full preterist, I spent much time questioning and testing my full preterist position because I did understand the enormity of making an error there. My goal was not solidifing my position. I have to admit for a while it seemed everything I studied did just that, but no longer.

    I see you brought out another preterist trait – a false view of the creeds where you come close to speaking of them like they are something “dirty”.

    I just may address that next.

  15. Hi Brian,

    While you and I haven’t talked, I have followed your blog. I must say it takes great courage to do the work you do. Keep it up.

    Like you, the longer I’ve been away from full preterism, the more I’m surprised I ever fell into that system. I think it’s become so “off the wall” today, that for many, a stand back with good hard look at what they see will go a long way to making them withdraw….

    The flood theory pretty much did it for me. For those here who don’t know what that is, it’s the latest hot topic in preterism proposing that the flood was only local, not global, and that Adam was the first “covenant” man, but not necessarily the first man and the Bible was written to “covenant” man. I never could get them to clarify how their viewed “man” not under covenant – a beast????or what?

    Thanks for the support. I’m very glad to see you here and I do plan on contacting you on some things. Fair warning. 🙂

  16. Hi Roderick,

    I’m not discouraged, nor do I value the opinion of Sam Frost as you well know. Right now, I’m just someone they can direct hostility toward. We’ve been witnessing that for a while now which I attribute to the decline in numbers.

    Of course, they must question my rejection of their beliefs. Nothing is wrong with theirs, so it must be mine…? I think that’s called self justification.

    I think I just might address the creeds next. I certainly wouldn’t want to disappoint them…

  17. Hi Mark,

    Yes, my daugher had her transplant and her brother was her donor. It was a long seige of hospitalizations and that’s how I ran into Phil here and I’ve been here ever since. Thanks for asking and I do appreciate the prayers. It’s been over a year now and she’s doing great. The bad news is the disease is still present. The good news is that it appears to be more mild – at least for the time being.

    Phil here was a God send during that time. I was dealing with some WOF teaching in the family and found a lot of answers here. I was upfront pretty early on about my preterist position and gave Phil my list of my concerns – both pro and con. I wanted to participate in non preterist discussions while I went back into study. He was willing to support that effort and I’m very grateful for that.

    I have run out of time this morning, but I do appreciate your comments and I will address them. I would like to say this before I log off this morning. I was a dispensationalist years ago and it took me well over a year to get those teachings straightened out. I too had issues with Rodericks lack of scriptural rebuttal from the start, but I’m far more understanding today. I’m not so quick to ask for a rush to justice.

    I think patience in this matter is a virtue. Want a good example, look at the book that has been written to refute Mathison…it’s taken well over a year to put that together. In fact, it’s 15 months and counting.

    I don’t know about you, but I’d rather wait on a well constructed argument with the “t”s crossed and the “i”s dotted than to experience the frustration of dealing with an argument that is anything less.

    more later

  18. Hi Dorothy,

    I’m certainly glad to hear that your daughter received that much needed transplant. Your son must be very brave, and very loving to do such a thing for his sister. What a testimony of love! How old is he? Will this continued disease affect her new kidney? It is my prayer that it does not.

    I am certainly patient. I have waited since Roderick left the preterist position for any kind of biblical response. I’m still waiting. As far as the response book to Keith Mathison, it has been more of technical publishing issues and artwork rather than content. I have been privy to the content for well over a year, and I must say that it is a thorough, and biblical work.

    In saying all of this, one of my biggest concerns is that Roderick uses very serious terms like “Heretic” to describe preterists. He does this without even your admitted lack of biblical response to our argumentation on his part. To use such serious terms without a proper and biblical case, shows me more of an attitude problem rather than a constructive refutation of our position. This is all done in the name of “historical unity” of the Christian Church. Considering us to be outside the faith, without any biblical refutation, is in my opinion, standing on dangerous ground.

    I have never really understood all of the pejorative language and name calling both inside and outside the preterist camp. I see abuses both within preterism and outside preterism. It’s nothing new. I find it quite disturbing and unfruitful. This does not occur just within preterism, but in every system of belief that I have encountered. I wish people could make their case, and leave the trash talk outside. I know we are all human, and people get emotionally tied to their pet arguments, but seriously, we all need to show more grace toward one another in these matters. We must realize that everyone is at a different level of understanding in their walk with Christ (including us heretics). My expectations for a child is far less than an adult, when it comes to understanding. So it should be in these types of discussions and in spiritual matters.

    We are all to share the truth in love and with respect. Sadly, this is not the testimony of modern Christianity as a whole, and certainly not the case from those in the “anti-preterist” camp.

    I became a preterist before I even knew their was such a term. I became a preterist through serious study on my own within the scriptures themselves. I have always known that I could read the Bible for myself, and that God would show me His truth if my heart was earnestly seeking Him. The Rodericks and Dee Dees of this world have no biblical justification for using such harsh and very serious language. If they do have biblical justification, let’s see it. It’s one thing to use these charges with biblical justification, but quite another to use them based upon the “historical unity” of the Church. I can demonstrate several instances of Church abuse and error throughout it’s relatively short history. Do I place my hope and faith in Christ upon such an altar? God forbid! I will always put my trust in Christ who is infallible and true to His Word. As should we all.

    Also, my wife will be glad to hear that preterism is dying out, as my time is becoming more consumed each week from pastors and seminary students calling me from all over the world. The time spent in these conversations is quite staggering. I am now also being asked to speak at conferences abroad. Hopefully, my time spent with more people each week will diminish and I can get back to spending more time with my family.;-)

    Anyway, I trust this day finds you well and that a truly biblical response is “at hand”.;-)

    Your brother in Christ,


  19. Hi Dorothy,

    I’m glad to hear that Hyper-Preterism has lost its hold on you. The “local flood” and “covenantal Adam” theories are completely off-the-wall, but these people take them very seriously! I was a Hyper-Pret for less than two years, yet had already started to encounter these oddball doctrines, even within the local church context.

    Yes, it’s wonderful to hear when another person leaves Hyper-Preterism. It’s like a miracle, or a new-born baby. And BTW, feel free to contact me any time. My email is bsimmons74 @ msn com.

    Peace & Health,


  20. Dorothy you hit it spot-on:

    “Second – there are those “within” preterism who know the implications of full preterism being a lie. A full preterist who is honest with their position, can and must acknowledge this or be considered to be lying to themselves. This isn’t optional. Dave Green got it right. That’s why I have and still do respect Dave Green.

    David Green is one of the only honestly consistent hyperpreterists out there. For that I also respect him.

  21. Some people here just have never even looked into what Church History says. So, to inform you, here are some qoutes for you to consider. While they may not be preterists, when you put it all together, the message is clear.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls (first century) “And we recognize that some of the blessings and curses have come, those written in the Bo[ok of Mo]ses; therefore this is the End of Days” (4Q397 – 399)
    “..from the day of the gathering in of the unique teacher, until the destruction of all the men of war who turned back with the man of lies, there shall be about forty years.” (Damascus Document, xx, 14-15) – “I will stare at his place and he will no longer be there. Its interpretation concerns all the evil at the end of the forty years, for they shall be devoured..” (Commentary on Ps 37:10, 4QPsalms Pesher [4Q17, ii, 6-8]).
    There were 40 years from Jesus’ death to the destruction of Jerusalem.

    THE ODES OF SOLOMON (Written near the end of the first century) – Eyes I have obtained in Him, and have seen His holy day. Ears I have acquired, and have heard His truth. The thought of knowledge I have acquired, and have enjoyed delight fully through Him. I repudiated the way of error, and went towards Him and received salvation from Him abundantly. I put on immortality through His name, and took off corruption by His grace. Death has been destroyed before my face, and Sheol has been vanquished by my word. And eternal life has arisen in the Lord’s land, and it has been declared to His faithful ones, and has been given without limit to all that trust in Him. Hallelujah.

    Barnabus (A.D. 130-131), (On the Temple of God in the Last Days)
    “Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God. … So it cometh to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down by their enemies. . . . Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith: and it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken.” (Barnabas 16:3-4)
    “Moreover, He again says, ‘Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.’ It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now, they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it… Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is – where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.’ I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord… Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, namely this, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world.” (Epistle of Barnabus)
    Melito, Bishop of Sardis (MIDDLE SECOND CENTURY) (On the Defeat of Death and the Devil) “It is I, says Christ, who destroyed death. It is I who triumphed over the enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the Strong Man, and have snatched mankind up to the heights of heaven.”

    Quintus Florens Tertullian (145- 220)
    “Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.” And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent: in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

    Clement of Alexandria-TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS (150- 220) Founder of the allegorical school of Biblical Interpretation, Teacher of Origen
    Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: “See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . .” And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken.

    Origenes of Alexandria (185- 254) (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
    “The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled” (Principles, 4:1:5). (On the New Heavens and Earth) “For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. “(Principles, 2:6:4)

    Eusebius Pamphilius (260 – 340) Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine (On Matthew 24:21)
    “But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.” “And all this prophecy of what would result from their insolence against the Christ has been clearly proved to have taken place after their plot against our Saviour. For it was not before it, but afterwards from that day to this that God turned their feasts into mourning, despoiled them of their famous mother-city, and destroyed the holy Temple therein when Titus and Vespasian were Emperors of Rome, so that they could no longer go up to keep their feasts and sacred meetings. I need not say that a famine of hearing theWord of the Lord has overtaken them all, in return for their rejection of the Word of God; since with one voice they refused Him, so He refuses them.”

    “All authorities concur in the declaration that “when all these things should have been done” “The End” should come : that “the mystery of God should be finished as he had declared to His servants the prophets” : it should be completed : time should now be no more : the End of all things (so foretold) should be at hand, and be fully brought to pass : in these days should be fulfilled all that had been spoken of Christ (and of His church) by the prophets : or, in other words, when the gospel should have been preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and the power of the Holy People be scattered (abroad), then should the End come, then should all these things be finished. I need now only say, all these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem–all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth ; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations ; God’s holy arm has been made bare in their sight: His judgments have prevailed, and they remain for an everlasting testimony to the whole world. His kingdom has come, as it was foretold it should, and His will has, so far, been done; His purposes have been finished; and, from that day to the extreme end of time, it will be the duty, as indeed it will be the great privilege of the Church, to gather into its bosom the Jew, the Greek, the Scythian, the Barbarian, bond and free; and to do this as the Apostles did in their days–in obedience, faith and hope.’ ”

    St. Athanasius (295- 373) (On the Fulfillment of Prophecy)
    “So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, “A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself.” And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming “The law and the prophets prophesied until John.” So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about?.. What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the Goddenyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Surely, then, it must be plain even to the most shameless that the Christ has come, and that He has enlightened all men everywhere, and given them the true and divine teaching about His Father.” (Incarnation, Ch. VI )

    “But if the Gentiles are honoring the same God that gave the law to Moses and made the promise to Abraham, and whose word the Jews dishonored, – why are the Jews ignorant, or rather why do they choose to ignore, that the Lord foretold by the Scriptures has shone forth upon the world, and appeared to it in bodily form, as the Scripture said. . . . What then has not come to pass, that the Christ must do? What is left unfulfilled, that the Jews should not disbelieve with impunity? For it, I say, which is just what we actually see, — there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them, but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the gentiles, leaving their godlessness, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus Christ, then it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ is come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light. … So one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the Divine Scriptures.”

    “The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies. The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently show to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions.”

    Epiphanes (315-403) (On Early Date of Revelation) states Revelation was written under “Claudius [Nero] Caesar.” (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,) (On The Millennial Reign of Christ) “There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense.” (Epiphanies, Heresies, 77:26.)

    Sulpcius Severus (353 – 429) Sacred History And this last overthrow of the temple, and final captivity of the Jews, by which, being exiles from their native land, they are beheld scattered through the whole world, furnish a daily demonstration to the world, that they have been punished on no other account than for the impious hands which they laid upon Christ. For though on other occasions they were often given over to captivity on account of their sins, yet they never paid the penalty of slavery beyond a period of seventy years.”

    St. Jerome (A.D. 340/342- 420) (On Matthew 24:15)
    That, “Let him that readeth understand,” is said to call us to the mystic understanding of the place. What we read in Daniel is this; “And in the midst of the week the sacrifice and the oblation shall be taken away, and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the consummation of the time, and consummation shall be given upon the desolate.” [Dan 9:27, septuagint] “It may be understood of the statue of Caesar, which Pilate set up in the temple; or of the equestrian statue of Adrian, which stood to the present time in the very Holy of Holies. For, according to the Old Scripture, an idol is called ‘abomination;’ “of desolation” is added, because the idol was set up in the desolated and deserted temple.”

    Augustine (A.D. 354-430)
    “Some think that these words refer to the Roman empire, and that the apostle Paul did not wish to write more explicitly, lest he should incur a charge of calumny against the Roman empire, in wishing ill to it when men hoped that it was to be everlasting. So in the words: ‘For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work’ he referred to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as those of Antichrist.” (City of God, XX, xix)

    Andreas of Cappadocia Caesarea (AD 431-506) (On Revelation 6:12) And I saw, when he had opened the sixth seal, and behold there was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood. And the stars from heaven fell upon the earth, as a fig-tree casteth its green figs when it is shaken by the wind.” [Apocalypse 6:12-13] “There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.”

    St. Chrysostom (4th Century) “Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming” (St. Chrvsostom’s Liturgy) And let not any man suppose this to have been spoken hyperbolically; but let him study the writings of Josephus, and learn the truth of the sayings. For neither can any one say, that the man being a believer, in orderto establish Christ’s words, hath exaggerated the tragical history. For indeed Josephus was a Jew, a determined Jew, very zealous, and among them that lived after Christ’s coming.”

    Apocryphal Legend of Veronica (7th or 8th Century) And Titus and Vespasian took counsel to surround their city. And they did so. And the seven years being fulfilled, there was a very sore famine, and for want of bread they began to eat earth.

    Arethas of Caesarea (850 – 944) Byzantine Scholar, Pupil of Photius, Deacon at Constantinople, Named Archbishop of Caesarea in 901 (On Revelation 7:1)
    “Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ.”

    Theophylact (11-12th Century) Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria (On Mark 13:20)
    “That is. if the Roman war had not been soon finished, “no flesh should be saved;” that is, no Jew should have escaped: “but for the elect’s sake, whom He hath chosen.” that is, for the sake of the believing Jews, or who were hereafter to believe, “He hath shortened the days.” that is. the war was soon finished, for God foresaw that many Jews would believe after the destruction of the city; for which reason He would not suffer the whole race to be utterly destroyed.”

    John Calvin (1509-1564) (On Matthew 24:34)
    “The meaning therefore is: “This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience. For within fifty years the city was destroyed and the temple was razed, the whole country was reduced to a hideous desert, and the obstinacy of the world rose up against God.”
    (On the Nature of Christ’s Kingdom)
    “We shall ever deny …that Christ’s Kingdom is visible. For however the sons of God are dispersed, without any reputation among men, it is quite clear that Christ’s Kingdom remains safe and sure, since in its own nature it is not outward but invisible. Christ did not utter these words in vain, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world.’ (John 18:36) By this expression He wished to remove His Kingdom from the ordinary forms of government.” (Commentary on Daniel, lecture eleven)

    John Lightfoot (1601 -1675) English scholar partially responsible for formulating the Westminster Confession “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world.” Jerusalem was not to be destroyed before the gospel was spread over all the world: God so ordering and designing it that the world, being first a catechumen in the doctrine of Christ, might have at length an eminent and undeniable testimony of Christ presented to it; when all men, as many as ever heard the history of Christ, should understand that dreadful wrath and severe vengeance which was poured out upon that city and nation by which he was crucified.” (John Liqhtfoot’s Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations) “That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of the world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. 24:29,30, The sun shall be darkened &c. Then shall appear the ‘sign of the Son of man,’ &c; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. 3:10, The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’ &c. Compare with this Deut. 32:22, Heb. 12:26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal 4:9, Col. 2:20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks only of the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses” (vol. 3, p. 452).

    John Locke (1632-1704) But the kingdom of God which was to be under the Messiah, wherein the economy and constitution of the Jewish Church, and the nation itself, that in opposition to Christ adhered to it, was to be laid aside, is in the New Testament called aivwvn mevllwn, the world, or age, to come; so that Christ’s taking them out of the present world, may, without any violence to the words, be understood to signify His setting them free from the Mosaical constitution.”

    Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) “Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming: his being revealed: his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” (Miscellany #1199)

    Adam Clarke (1715-1832)(On The Nature of Christ’s Return ; Matthew 16:27-28 ; Significance of A.D.70) “I conclude, therefore, that this prophecy has not the least relation to Judas Maccabeus. It may be asked, to whom, and to what event does it relate? .. to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity; which in the Gospel is called the coming of Christ and the days of vengeance, Matthew 16:28; Luke 21:22.” (Isaiah 65, p. 513)
    Adam Clarke (1837)
    (On Revelation 1:7) “By this the Jewish People are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.” (6:971.)
    “Bengel has said much on these points, but to very little purpose; the word in the above place seems to signify delay simply, and probably refers to the long-suffering of God being ended in reference to Jerusalem; for I all along take for probable that this book was written previously to the destruction of that city.” (Revelation 10)

    Bishop Thomas Newton, 1754 (On the coming of Christ) ‘The coming of Christ’ is also the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, as may appear from several places in the Gospels, and particularly from these two passages; ‘There are some standing here,’ saith our blessed Lord, ‘who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,’ Matt xvi. 28, that is, evidently, there are some standing here who shall live, not till they end of the world, to the coming of Christ to judge mankind, but till the destruction of Jerusalem, to the coming of Christ in judgment upon the Jews. In another place, John xxi.22, speaking to Peter concerning John, he saith, ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ what is that to thee, if I will that he live till the destruction of Jerusalem? as in truth he did, and long. ‘The coming of Christ,’ and ‘the conclusion of the age,’ being therefore only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of the question plainly is, when shall the destruction of Jerusalem be, and what shall be the signs of it?'” (Newton, p. 374)
    “’immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not giver her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.’ Commentators generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world, and of Christ’s coming to judgment; but the words ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days,’ show, evidently, that he is not speaking of any distant but of something immediately consequent upon the tribulation before mentioned, and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem.”
    “Our Saviour proceedeth in the same figurative style, ver. 30 – ‘ And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.’ The plain meaning of it is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ’s power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will be led from thence to acknowledge Christ and the Christian religion. In the ancient prophets, God is frequently described as coming in the ‘clouds’ upon any remarkable interposition and manifestation of his power; and the same description is here applied to Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem will be as ample a manifestation of Christ’s power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven.” (ibid., p. 408-409)
    “It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, “All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation.” It seemeth as if our Saviour had been aware of some such misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, v 35 – “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away'” (Newton, p. 426)
    Philip Schaff (19th Century) “This being so, then the words relating to a personal return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the Destruction of Jerusalem” (Mat, x.23; xvi.28).” (Second Advent)

    Rev. John Rogers Pitman-1825
    “The destruction of Jerusalem is phrased in Scripture as the destruction of the whole world: and Christ’s coming to her in judgment, as his coming to the last judgment. Therefore, those dreadful things, spoken of in Matt. 24:29,30 and 31, are but borrowed expressions, to set forth the terms of that judgment the more., v.30 – “then shall they see” – not any visible appearance of Christ, or of the cross, in the clouds (as some have imagined); but, whereas Jews would not own Christ before for the Son of Man, or for the Messiah, then by the vengeance that he should execute upon them, they and all the world should see an evident sign, and it was so. This, therefore, is called “his coming,” and his coming in his kingdom.” [A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Rev. John Rogers Pitman (London: J.F. Dove, 1825), p.141]

    James Stuart Russell (1816-1895)
    The Parousia, A careful look at the New Testament doctrine of our Lord’s Second Coming

    Dr. Karl August Auberlen (1824-1864) The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John in Their Mutual Relation (Andover: 1857) | Die Theosophie Friedrich Christoph Oetingers (Tubingen: 1847) | Theology Professor 1824-1864 Basel (On Matthew 24:28)”…Christ Himself represents the destruction of Jerusalem as His Messianic coming” (Matt. xxiv. 28).” (p. 101)

    F.W. Farrar (1882) Chaplain to Queen Victoria, 1871-1876, Archdeacon of Westminster, Dean of Canterbury
    “all the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Irenaeus down to Victorious of Pettau and Commodian in the fourth, and Andreas in the fifth, and St. Beatus in the eighth century, connect Nero, or some Roman emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast.” (Early Days of Christianity, p.541)
    “the Fall of Jerusalem was, in the fullest sense, the Second Advent of the Son of Man which was primarily contemplated by the earliest voices of prophecy” – F.W. Farrar,
    F.W. Farrar (1886)
    “there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse.” (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 387)
    “We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.” (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 408)
    The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive. (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 434)

    William Hurte (1884)
    “That John saw these visions in the reign of Nero, and that they were written by him during his banishment by that emperor, is confirmed by Theophylact, Andreas, Arethas, and others. We judge, therefore, that this book was written about A.D. 68, and this agrees with other facts of history.. There are also several statements in this book which can only be understood on the ground that the judgment upon Jerusalem was then future.” (Catechetical Commentary: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1884)
    Arthur Cushman McGiffert (1890)
    “Internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore taking place under Nero instead of Domitian.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, ch.5. Eusebius notes, 148, footnote 1.)
    Ernest Hampden Cook The Christ Has Come (1891)(On the Significance of A.D.70)
    “In 70 A.D. the heavenly Kingdom was fully established over the earth. For it was then that the ringleader of evil was cast into the abyss, and the saints began to reign with Christ.” “But if, as we confidently believe, the Second Advent really took place within the narrow limits of time assigned to it by Christ Himself, then, in 70 A.D., the Old Testament saints and the saints of the primitive Church entered into the joy of their Lord and shared to the utmost in the twofold victory which He, as man and on man’s behalf, bad, at His resurrection, gained over the grave and over all the powers of evil.” (On The Fulfillment of Prophecy) The most ancient faith of the Christian church associated together the destruction of Jerusalem, the winding up of the Jewish dispensation, and a personal return of Christ to the earth, as events which were certain to happen at one and the same time. Jesus and His apostles believed and taught that the Second Advent would take place in the lifetime of some who had been His earthly contemporaries. Confident that the founders of Christianity were neither deceived nor mistaken we joyfully accept on their authority the fact that the Christ has already come the second time.”
    N.T. “Tom” Wright Canon of Westminster Abbey, London, Teacher of New Testament Studies at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill Universities, The Dean of Lichfield, one of England’s oldest cathedrals.
    “The word “parousia” is itself misleading, anyway, since it merely means ‘presence’; Paul can use it of his being present with a church, and nobody supposes that he imagined he would make his appearance flying downward on a cloud.

    Jay E. Adams (1966)
    “[the temple still standing in Revelation 11:1 is] unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A.D.” (The Time is at Hand, p. 68).
    “The Revelation was written to a persecuted church about to face the most tremendous onslaught it had ever known. It would be absurd (not to say cruel) for John to write a letter to persons in such circumstances which not only ignores their difficulties, but reveals numerous details about events supposed to transpire hundreds of years in the future during a seven year tribulation period at the end of the church age.” (The Time is at Hand, p. 49)
    “It is to remain unsealed because ‘the time is at hand.’ That is, its prophecies are about to be fulfilled. The events which it predicts do not pertain to the far distant future, but they are soon to happen. The message is for this generation, not for some future one.” (The Time is at Hand, p. 51)
    R.C. Sproul (1998)
    “If the book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening. Not only does Revelation not mention the temple’s destruction as a past event, it frequently refers to the temple as still standing. This is seen clearly in Revelation 11 …Gentry gives impressive evidence to support this conclusion.” (Last Days, pp.147-149)

  22. Dee Dee,

    I am so sorry I didn’t respond to you this morning. I must say, I’ve read so much of your work over the years that I feel like I know you.

    For those who don’t know you here, I would like them to know that you have been a huge thorn in the side of the full preterist movement and have extensive knowledge of that belief system. They can check out your work at Preterist Blog.

    In spite of the hostility on both sides, I have actually heard good things about you from a few on the full pret side of the fence. They do admire your work even if they don’t always agree with it. I think it was Dave Green who suggested that you and I meet or talk at some point but I don’t believe this is what he had in mind.

    Thanks for your support. It does mean a lot.

  23. […] They know they can’t get around the FACT that to believe hyperpreterism a person MUST believe there has been a 2000 year conspiracy where Christians have been too dumb to see what hyperpreterists now claim.  So instead, they must do all they can to stop anyone leaving the cult…especially as more & more are leaving AND are telling the truth about the hyperpreterist movement. (See example of another EX-hyperpreterist’s account of the movement: […]

  24. Hi Keith,

    Welcome to the discussion. I see the parts and pieces of historical evidence has grown a little in size. I’m not sure it’s exactly the same one, but I know one was used back when I first became a FP and I was pretty impressed, that is until I came to realize that the majority of people had no clue about Church history and I was one of them. I know I still haven’t read the work of all these men but I’m working on it. I’m curious. How many have you read?

    I ask that question because if you take each one, I think you will find there are some similarities in what they professed as foundational Christian beliefs. It’s called the “Rule of Faith” that you can find spelled out here:

    Tertullian also wrote the “Prescription Against Hereticks” If you take the time to read some of it, I think you will find that he advised against any interaction between anyone who did not prescribe to the rule of faith. If you have a little time, would you take a look at this and tell me how you think the men who professed the “Rule of Faith” could validate teaching the hyperpreterist belief.

    When it comes to history, the futurist believing Church holds all the cards. You don’t want to do battle there. Why do you think hyperpreterists get so upset when the creeds and confessions are placed on the table? Why do you think they want them removed? I’m sure you’re a smart man and God gave you a good mind…so I pray you will take a look at what I have attached here and come up with some good questions for yourself and hopefully answers to – how is it in AD107 we have a “Rule of Faith” and it speaks of a future resurrection. Where these men just thick headed and didn’t get it?

    Ya know – I’ve seen Josephus rolled out to validate a local flood which occurred 2000 years before he lived, yet let me roll out the creeds and confessions and I’m informed that they just didn’t get it right. Think about it Keith. Do you think it just might be possible that there is a kink in the works and it’s leading you down a false road? Can you handle the thought or possibility that the position you hold just might be wrong?

    I do hope you will think about some of these things today…and tomorrow…and the next day. If it would help, I could take your list and start working down it but I think that exercise might be something you want to tackle.

  25. Keith,

    I see I failed to actually point you to the “short version” of my response. At Tertullian’s book site – scroll down to item 13 and 14 – aka XIII and XIV.

    I do hope you read his entire piece there, but items 13 and 14 will get across the main point of my position.

  26. Keith,

    Your attempt to find support for Hyper-Preterism in church history is a fraud. ALL the church fathers believed in a future second coming and future bodily resurrection. Likewise, ALL the church fathers believed in a future personal Antichrist. So you really don’t have the support you think you do.

    Church history actually supports futurism, and not preterism. Of course, we wouldn’t expect you guys to be honest with the evidence. You already perverted the Scriptures, so you’ll just as shamelessly pervert church history. Way to go.


  27. Hi Dorothy thank you so much for the kind words. Yes, there are several hyperpreterists that I know and respect and have been friends with over the years. I tend to be very bad with names (so I know he is going to kill me!) but there is a gentleman who assisted me in working out a NPOV (neutral point of view) article on Wikipedia. And of course David Green. Before Roderick left the movement he was another I was very good friends with. There is a kindly gentleman that writes me frequently also, but since it has always been private, I do not know if he would wish for me to mention his name.

    Any time I can assist you at all, just let me know. There are some articles at the Preterist Site I think you might want to read from a lady named Sharon Beverly. They are quite eye-opening.

    Here are the kind of threats she had to endure:

    Get a grip on reality, and be prepared to be exposed (and humiliated) publicly for the utterly unScriptural, ungodly stand you’ve taken. Shame on you, any so-called “ministry” you’re associated with, and everyone else in any way connected with you and your nonsense. You haven’t a shred of credibility left after your little rant against Pantelism, and I will make it my personal little project to publicly expose the utterly fraudulent, baseless, nonsensical idiocy forming the foundation and framework of YOUR paradigm. John McPherson Planet Preterist

    These were her wise words of advice:

    I think alot of folks running around out there who have been deeply wounded by Pantelism, or who are seriously struggling with it, are afraid to speak out against it, which is quite understandable. Whether you’re a learned, intellectual Theologian, or the common fisherman who loves the Lord, all saints who have stood up to this poison have experienced the dogmatic, arrogant, and rabid fervor that drives it at the highest echelons. It can appear outwardly intimidating, but please, do not let this keep you from speaking out. Whether we stand or fall, we stand or fall to Him, and no one else.

    You can expect to be slandered. You can expect to have a slew of fancy-shmancy terminology thrown at you, along with the charge that because you don’t write or speak according to their intellectual standards, you are a sub-standard idiot not worthy of any credibility. Do not worry. The Lord is simple, and a Man of few words. In the midst of His enemies, He often never spoke at all, even when falsely accused.

    The fool is known by his many words, and condemneth his own self with his constantly wagging tongue. Do not contend with the fool. Speak the truth with an honest heart, and leave the results in His hands. Spiritual quickening is the Lord’s work-not ours. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, will hear and see. Those who do not-will not-and no amount of intellectual arguing will change this. The wise man who allows himself to be drawn back into the fool’s ring again and again, is engaging his own pride.

    It really is such a joy to see the fruit of the Lord. Back a few years ago when I was a guest on Roderick’s show I just knew the Lord was doing a work in him. I contacted all of my friends, almost giddy with the feeling of the Spirit’s work on his heart, and told them, pray, pay earnestly for this man. There is a chain of people that we don’t even know that cause the butterfly effect. Some of this may never have happened if it were not for a very humble and dedicated pastor named Chori Seraiah who took me under his wing.

    I read the post over at SCG where a poster was lamenting your change of mind. It was unfathomable to me and really drove him to me just how deep and ingrained this paradigm shift is. As far as they are concerned, even though it will rarely be admitted, to them, you have abandoned the Gospel. I can’t count how many people I have known and debated who I convinced of my position for a short time, who eventually changed their mind. Some to historicism, some to historic premillennialism, etc. I never grieved. I rejoiced that they were studying to show themselves approved and listened to why they no longer agreed with me. And I learned a lot and have changed my views on some things. Truly I was aghast at the lamentation that was posted. If hyperpreterism is “simply just another eschatological view, not the Gospel” there would never be such an outpouring of shock. I never see that happen when the orthodox shift their views to another orthodox view.

    Ahh I remember his name. Mike Biedler. He is a good guy.

    I am praying for you Dorothy, and I am also just an email away. Far too often than not, I am sitting right here in front of my beautiful Macintosh 🙂

  28. To all:

    I must readily admit, it has been a while since I have looked at the Creeds. Even when considering just the Nicene Creed, I was never sure which of the 30 known versions was the right one to follow. 325 AD, 381 AD, 431 AD, 449 AD and all other subsequent or parallel variations?

    I also found it odd that the 1st (Council at Ephesus) added that no one in the future could dare challenge or change the Nicene Creed (Under threat of excommunication) only to be argued again at the Second Council at Ephesus; and so on, and so on, and so on.

    Since we are primarily looking at Eschatology: Let’s no assume I reject the entire thing, because I do not but then again, that is a problem within itself. For many, it’s all or nothing so people like Dee Dee Warren & Roderick accuse Full Prets of rejecting the entire thing, and rightly so, in their eyes.

    “And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen”

    I am not Catholic and the argument for Catholic simply meaning Universal is moot to me. I do believe in a Universal or Corporate or even Collective body << Singular, that being One Body of Christ but the Catholic Church puts emphasis here on a singular denomination.

    Actually; the Catholics and many other “Churches” believe in 2 Baptisms: Baptism by Water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some simply attempt to combine this into a collective, successive action that is simultaneous but Scripture clearly shows Water Baptism did not necessitate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    Water Baptism is the shadow, not the true. It is Ceremonial, it is Tradition and is both Symbolic & Metaphorical. I do not condemn or mock those who practise it, I simply do not believe water baptism is a pre-requsite of Salvation. Again, it was the picture of the true!

    In regards to the statement made by David Green? It’s plainly obvious, if one is wrong, the other is right! This idea works both ways as well.

    Very early Catholic traditions executed Hereticks and I guess many would do the same today. Full or Hyper-Preterists are accused of ignoring or denying 2,000 years of Christian History. Wasn’t much of the Early Church History filled with this bloodshed but this is conveniently forgotten, ignored, denied or pushed under the rug?

    Many today want to dismiss these kinds of accusations today because they are not involved with such atrocities. Isn’t it ironic that Full Preterist Eschatology points to a minority of believers and evidence in that same Church History for its beliefs and yet even those who admit to these Church atrocities want to point out their minority status and push them aside s irrelevant as well. At least this is consistent.

    I’m not the least bit interested in supporting beliefs not only held, but mandated by mankind through Creeds, Confessions, Councils, Synods or Ecumenical Gatherings; under either threat of excomunication, execution, damnation or persecution by those who consider themselves and the majority the only way allowed.

    The Apostles Creed carries much the same weight with myself & others. It is simply another version, maybe earlier or later than any of the other Creeds. It also specifies one must believe in the Holy Catholic Church, a future return of Christ (although whether or not visible or physical is not mentioned) but subsequently added, inferred or interpreted by those who hold that these documents were not to be added to or changed.

    And a resurrection of a body (again, physical is not specified, and it also only signifies a single body, not individual or plural bodies)

    Even this resurrection of the dead is not said to be a one time event; how does one not know they simply meant for this resurrection to begin? Again, people adding to what they old to that says no one can add to or change?

    The Westminster Confession of Faith closes in Chapter 33 section 3 it states “so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come” How is trusting in what you see “Carnal things, events & happenings” shaking off Carnal Security? It’s a direct Contridiction.

    Too many mandates, too many decrees and entirely too many threats towards those who dare question or doubt. I find it especially odd that one would teach we should always keep our eyes, ears and mind open but hold to man made decrees that condemn such actions.

    This is where it just gets boring for me so I will leave you with these thoughts.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr.
    GAP Evangelising

  29. Keith, you have GOT to be kidding me. All you have proven is that hyperpreterists are adept at cherry-picking. I bet I could take statement from various hyperpreterists and weave them together to make them all seem like they support universalism, even the ones that claim they don’t. Would that be fair? Under your disrespectful use of these men it would be perfectly fair. Have you no shame? Are you just so much smarter than all of them over hundreds of years, that wrote such wise words, yet just couldn’t put the puzzle pieces together like some merry band of heretics have down within the last few decades. We forget in our time of Internet and modern comforts that these men spent far more time in actual labour in the Word than we do. They did it sometimes under pain of death. And yet here we are, haughty and fat (I mean that in the way the Bible does in its condemnation of cities who are complacent) in our comfortable little lives thinking that we know so much better, that the Church has missed the basic fundamentals of Christian eschatology for two millennia. Really. There are words for that kind of arrogance and most of them cannot be said without having to wash one’s mouth out with soap and seek repentance.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. But the first thing that goes when one accepts this “paradigm” shift is a godly sense of shame and humility.

  30. I would like to give an example. About four or so years ago I had an “aha” moment, one that I need to write on as it is IMHO the key to pit that hyperpreterism should be locked under. However, I had never heard anyone else express this “insight” before. What did I do? Rather than presumptously assuming that I was just so brilliant that I figured out something never thought of before, I distanced myself from this “theory” with caution. I researched extensively. I sought the counsel of learned men. I discovered that the conclusion I reached was one that was held quite commonly before the advent of dispensationalism and therefore I wasn’t being swept away with some new wind of doctrine and ticking my ears. I ran my thought past Keith Mathison and much to my delight, at nearly the same time, he had come to the same conclusion and is writing a book on it.

    But here is a maxim well worth nothing. Theological novelty is not a Good Thingtm. It is not always heresy, sometimes it is just silly; but it should be a red flag that perhaps you are not on the right path because I hate to break to you hon’, but it is a slim chance that either you or I are that much smarter than those who came before.

  31. Mr. Simmons:

    You stated: “Church history actually supports futurism, and not preterism. Of course, we wouldn’t expect you guys to be honest with the evidence. You already perverted the Scriptures, so you’ll just as shamelessly pervert church history. Way to go”

    Who has ever told you Church History doesn’t support Futurism? You however neglected to mention “The majority of Christian History” The Majority of Jerusalem screamed for the blood of Christ, the Majority of those standing there were Judaizers, The Majority of mankind used to think the earth was flat. Why is it that when an argument comes from an ex-full pret or a futurist against full preterism, they have ALL the evidence and we have NOTHING? Arrogance? Pride? Ego? The very things we’re accused of?

    You also stated: ” ALL the church fathers believed in a future second coming and future bodily resurrection. Likewise, ALL the church fathers believed in a future personal Antichrist”

    I guess this would be determined by who accepts whom as a Church Father, right? I’d dare say I could find 20 who never mention a future anti-christ, but I suppose you’d just dismiss their testimonies, right?


  32. Wow, Where to begin? I suppose with Mark first. In reference to Comment 21.

    Mark you said you had been waiting for me to make “any kind of biblical response” as if I have not. Here’s the problem Mark, NO KIND of response will be sufficient for you or any other hyperpreterist. I know there wasn’t any good response while I was a hyperpreterist (I was sold & could not be told). Biblical discussion or not, you guys have an over-arching that ignores everything as if you had blinders on. I mean look, if you aren’t going to listen to the testimony of 2000 years worth of “biblical response” from billions of Christians then I’m not arrogant enough to think you will listen to me. Although I have put forth MANY “biblical responses” (see here for example), the hyperpreterist redefinition makes them tone deaf…as it did me while I was one of you.

    As for the supposed “thorough” work you claim for one of the many hyperpreterist responses in the works to WSTTB, it can’t be too “thorough” when the main author can’t even spell the name of the recent presidential candidate, yet felt the need to to write his typical verbose article repeating the misspelling. (See here as long as it is still posted). My point is, is THIS the kind of “scholarship” that is going to be in this hyperpreterist book? Such poor research that the guy can’t even correctly spell the name of his subject? Hyperpreterist or not, this is not something I would brag about as “thorough”. Now come on Mark, be honest.

    Next, Mark says his “biggest concern is that Roderick uses very serious terms like “Heretic” to describe preterists”. First, why does Mark keep using the term “preterist” as if it applies to him? Historically & traditionally a “preterist” believes the big 3 eschatological events are YET future. A HYPER-preterist is someone who has gone beyond the original intent & scope of historical/traditional preterism, just as a HYPER-calvinist is someone who goes beyond historical/traditional calvinism. So, if Mark isn’t even going to get his terminology correct, how can we interact? He can’t be calling something with gills & fins a bird & expect to effectively communicate outside his circle of cronies. But, I don’t use the word heretic lightly. A person is NOT a heretic simply because they believe something different or because we’re trying to “smear” them. Biblically speaking, a heretic is someone who is teaching CONTRARY & DIVISIVE doctrine…doctrine that divides Christians from historic Christianity. See Rom 16:17-18. If anything is advocating contrary & divisive doctrine, hyperpreterism certainly is — as it is in opposition to 2000 years worth of Christianity, along with being in opposition to the Bible. Yes Mark, using the word “heretic” IS serious & it is even MORE serious that you are not understanding that hyperpreterism is rightly depicted as a heresy. As for me presenting a “biblical case” as to why it is heresy, Romans 16:17-18 has done that quite well, but then again we have already covered this ground.

    Calling hyperpreterism a heresy is not school-boy “name-calling”, it is SERIOUS. you should take a moment to understand why not just I, but 2000 years worth & billions of Christians throughout time ALSO consider hyperpreterism to be heresy. Don’t make this out to be personal as if big bad meanie Roderick is picking on poor, poor lovely defenseless hyperpreterists. Being in a heresy is NOT merely “being at a different level of understanding” — it is being OUTSIDE the biblical & apostolic teachings/traditions passed on to the Body of Christ (see 2 Thes 2:15). You imply that we in the so-called “anti-preterist camp” are not showing “love & respect” yet hyperpreterists by their very premise consider 2000 years worth of Christians as too dumb to understand what supposedly hyperpreterists claim? Who then is not “loving & respectful”? I’d call that base arrogance.

    You claim you came to hyperpreterism through independent Bible study — I wonder why 2000 years worth of Christians, some who had no other reading material but the Bible & spent far, far more time in the Scriptures than you & I…why didn’t these people conclude your hyperpreterism???? I suspect “left-behindism” is to blame. Hyperpreterism is an over-reaction to the “left-behind” craze. Sure, if the only alternatives were “left-behindism” or hyperpreterism, of course hyperpreterism would be appealing. Fortunately, the Bible AND Christian history have ALWAYS had something else to offer.

    There IS biblical justification…even biblical instruction to declare & even NAME by NAME those who are teaching contrary & divisive doctrine (see Rom 16:17-18 again…yes I’ll keep pounding away at those verses but perhaps add also Prov 26:12)

    So Mark before you go running back to the hyperpreterist forum to tell them “what’s his name” is being a meanie to you, perhaps you should take a moment to listen if not to me, then to your friend Dorothy. Surely, though you & your buddies may have concocted this image that I am some ogre out to get every hyperpreterist, you must know that your friend Dorothy here cares about you & wants to see you give up this false “wise in your own eyes” corrupted creed called hyperpreterism (they have a rule to never mention my name of their hyperpreterist forum).

    As for addressing Keith’s post about all the supposed guys who advocated hyperpreterism, I ran long in this response so I’ll tackle that another day. But, just know that Keith conveniently left out of his cut-&-paste job, that almost none of the people he cites believed anything like what the hyperpreterists advocate. If anything, those sources were examples of historic/traditional preterism, not hyperpreterism — but hey, who cares about accurate terminology or even correctly spelling a presidential candidate’s name when there is an agenda to push.

  33. Hi All,

    I posted the following at……

    Hello Mark and All,

    My name is Phil Naessens and I administrate the blog Theology Today. I would like to thank you Mark for allowing me to post a response on your site.

    Dorothy Anderson has been a regular at my site for quite some time now. I was and am very impressed by her sincerity and her faithfulness to diligently search the Scriptures for the truth. In fact I couldn’t operate my site and do the work I do without her. Dorothy is the “good cop” to my “bad cop” and if you spend any amount of time perusing the site you will see this.

    A few months ago Dorothy wrote me stating she was a “Full Preterist” and she also stated she was still trying to resolve some issues she had with that eschatological belief. Her reason for doing so? She didn’t want someone to find out that I was allowing a FP to contribute on my blog because she didn’t want to “hurt the work that was being done at Theology Today”. I assured her that wouldn’t be the case and I encouraged her to continue her studies. Obviously Return from Oz is a direct result of her diligent study and I applaud her on her findings and support her fully as do the regular readers at Theology Today.

    I also want to be perfectly clear that had Dorothy remained a FP her involvement as a contributer at Theology Today would have continued. Her eschatological beliefs don’t change the fact that she is knowledgeable in many aspects making her a huge asset and I feel blessed to have her as a friend and a co-laborer in Christ.

    I personally know this “departure” or “defection” as some here are calling it is a tough pill for some of you to swallow. If it was this hard for you can imagine how difficult it was for her? From some of the comments I’ve read here I can see that some don’t appreciate this which I find troubling.

    Through intensive study Dorothy has changed her theological opinion in regards to eschatology which is a non essential. Dorothy hasn’t changed her soteriology one bit just her eschatology but it appears some here seem to think she’s abandoned the faith which is hogwash. It’s my fervent prayer that we never lose sight of that.

    Theology Today has as regular readers many pastors and seminary professors. We love Dorothy for her genuineness and sincerity and her Christ like communication with those she disagrees with. We also have great respect and admiration for her diligence in the study of the Scriptures and her genuine quest for the truth.

    At this point the readers of Theology Today have been relatively silent allowing Dorothy to respond to comments regarding her brave decision. Please don’t confuse our silence with a lack of knowledge. Theology Today has readers who have debated the likes of Don Preston and other prominent figures within the FP belief system and I’m quite confident they will respond if needed. Dorothy is not alone my friends.

    I invite you all to join in on the various discussions that Dorothy’s articles will provoke however asinine comments like “she[Dorothy] should return to mama church” are completely uncalled for and won’t be tolerated and that applies to my readers as well. I WILL NOT allow Dorothy to be personally attacked on my site and I would hope that you Mark won’t allow any further personal attacks on Dorothy in the future.

    Again, thanks Mark for allowing me to comment here and I look forward to any and all interactions in the future.

    Yours in Christ,

    Phil Naessens
    Theology Today
    +30 693 644 4218

    PS….Welcome Dee Dee…you and that Mac:-)

  34. Jerry,

    From what source was the “majority” deriving their opinions? The Bible speaks of a future second coming and future Antichrist. But will you believe the Bible?? Of course not. Jerry, there’s no need to argue with you, because you won’t believe a word I say. Preterism is an addiction that affects every aspect of a person’s thinking. See my article here:

    I could give you twenty cartloads of evidence against Hyper-Preterism, and I already know you’ll gainsay me on every point till you’re blue in the face. It isn’t worthwhile discussing these things with you, because you’ve apostasized from the faith that “saved” you, and are now an enemy of the Gospel. Isn’t that where it’s all at, Jerry?

    No, you’ve not repented and acknowledged the authority of the Scriptures. So I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge the testimony of church history. Until you believe the word of God, there IS no discussion. Evangelists or not, you’re headed toward hellfire except you repent. God will not hold you guiltless for perverting His Gospel. My personal messeage to every sophist and vain thinker caught up in Hyper-Preterism is: “repent! repent! repent!”


  35. It’s sad to see someone like Dorothy succumb to the peer pressure of the hyper-futurist cult.

    With futurism calling into question the deity of Christ and the Inerrancy of Scriptures.Hyper-futurism is the number one cause of atheism today.

    The false date setting along with The Salem witch trails,crusades,the inquisitions and many other church misdeeds is a testament to Historical Christianity failures and more then enough reason to reject it’s claim as some sort of authority.

    By claiming that Jesus didn’t return when he said he would makes him a failure or a lair?

    Giving new meanings to words like “soon” and “quickly” perverts the Bible into a hodgepodge of fables.

    It saddens me to see comments like Brian’s “authority of the Scriptures”.But yet he denies the plain meaning of simple words..Worse are the calls for “Historical Christianity” to be the final authority.
    I only pray Dorothy’s next step is not atheism like so many other hyper-futurist.


  36. Dorothy,

    You wrote, “As a final note to this first post, I would like to say that there is a variety of preterism now called partial or historical preterism. It is the belief that the majority of prophecies in the New Testament find fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. It is sound and is the historical position of the Church.”

    From this it is inferred: The majority of NT prophecy is fulfilled in A.D. 70.

    Second, This “is the historical position of the Church.”

    As a history major, perhaps you could document how the history of church has believed that the “majority” of NT prophecy is fulfilled in A.D. 70. You might want to start with Papias….This is a serious question. I am not being facitious.

    Sam Frost

  37. MG,

    This is what we mean by “delusions.” You say that Futurists don’t believe the plain meaning of simple words. Ok. What does “soon” mean? Futurists believe it means “soon!” On the contrary, you believe it means “already happened.” Hyper-Prets are lacking direct Biblical support for their view. Therefore, they have to erect a logical framework with which to approach the Scriptures. This framework is really an “air-castle” built on “a priori” logic. That is, someone came up with conclusions before they looked at all the evidence. Those conclusions have unfortunately become a lens which colors everything you see.

    Facts are facts, and your theories are fiction. There is not one passage in the Bible that looks back on the Second Coming as a completed event. Therefore, your placement of Christ’s coming in A.D. 70 is purely subjective, and based on fancy, and not fact.


  38. Brian,

    As you and I have a strong agreement in this area, I am alarmed as well by Dorothy’s statement, “As a final note to this first post, I would like to say that there is a variety of preterism now called partial or historical preterism. It is the belief that the majority of prophecies in the New Testament find fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. It is sound and is the historical position of the Church.” I know you would not agree with the assessment of “church history.”


  39. Hi Sam,

    Well, I agree there are some ‘elements’ of preterism to be found in the church fathers. However, I don’t believe Preterism (full or partial) is the historic position of the church, whether it be Roman, Reformed, or Evangelical. If it were, I probably would have remained a preterist.

    For the benefit of all concerned, I think it is erroneous to view A.D. 70 as an eschatological terminus. The destruction of Jerusalem was Dispensational (not eschatological) in nature. It marked the close of a Dispensation, and not of an age. This is proved by the fact that the temple ordinances continued in force after the veil of the temple was rent. L

    et’s face it. If the “age” was to end with the abolition of the ceremonial law, it would have been effected on the Cross, and not 40 years later. The fact that it DIDN’T only shows that A.D. 70 is a time-marker of Dispensational value alone.


  40. Well Hello Sam,

    What a surprise. I must have hit a nerve when the full pret scholarship shows up…

    To answer your question – why not check out the post keith made here that the FP’s have been rolling out for years.

    I hate to say it Sam, but to deny the Church has taken a “partial preterist” view for 2000 years, is contrary to the argument that is made for full preterism, is it not? Isn’t is always the position that they just didn’t connect all the dots?

    If you take exception to my statement, I’m open for correction…Actually, I stated what my studies have shown me to date and what I’ve heard through the FP camp for years. I stated here that I wasn’t that studied on Church history but I’m working on it, but I will add that what I’ve read to date agrees with my statement. IF it’s incorrect, why don’t you illuminate us?

  41. Brian says “What does “soon” mean? Futurists believe it means “soon!”
    So to Brian something that was to happen “soon” 2000 yrs ago and counting, is still going to happen “soon”..OK Brian i think i understand you.NOT!!

    This makes a mockery of Brian’s framework built on “a priori” logic.And as i have said leads people to question the inspiration of Jesus and the Apostles very on words.

    “Delusional” would be a kind description of Brian’s logic.

    SHORTLY, QUICKLY: ταχει, tachos and en tachei mean “quickly, all at once, with all speed, without delay.”

    ABOUT TO, ON THE POINT OR VERGE OF (μελλει, mello, mellei)

    You and twist and turn the scriptures all you want Brian.But with over 100 biblical, preterist “time-indicators” there is overwhelming scriptural support that our Lord actually fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, as He said He would. (Matt. 5:17)

    PS Facts are facts Brian.Scriptures are truth,changing the meanings of words is the same as changing scripture.Be careful.

  42. Hi MG,

    Actually, I didn’t succomb to any pressure. In fact, I’m quite grateful here to Phil for taking off ALL the pressure as I believe his statement on this site states.

    Contrary to hyperpreterist opinion….I came to this deduction from taking the time to look into areas that FP have never resolved successfully for me. I am comfortable with what I see there and I’m still working in some areas.

    When you demand that your interpretation of scripture hold with this statement “By claiming that Jesus didn’t return when he said he would makes him a failure or a lair?” you are in fact stating that for 2000 years Christians have been teaching a bald faced lie.

    Anyone else here have a problem with that thought?

  43. I love how Dee and Rod twist things around. WE, supposedly, are demented, stalkers, persecutors, etc. Yet, these are the two that run a blog that involves monitoring our SGP network 24/7, and the minute a new member joins and leaves any contact info on their profile page, they immediately start contacting family, friends, pastors, college profs, and so on.

    Ummm…stalker anyone?

    One of our members showcased a video of his wife being interviewed on TV and ole stalker Rod here hunts down her blog and starts pressuring her about her preterist husband.

    Notice, no one at SGP makes this a salvation issue. These two do.

    Phil, spend some time over at I guarantee you that if you had left Dorothy on as a contributor knowing full well that she is a full preterist, you would have been hunted down. You would have been called all sorts of things.

    Rod tried this with Gary Demar at American Vision (because Gary is “pret-friendly) and got canned.

    Rod tried this with the Covenant Radio guys and again got canned. Bill is not a full pret, yet got blasted for letting prets “contribute”, to the point where Bill went off on Rod.

    Rod has put up a site that will list ministries, pastors, churches, etc. that are “pret-friendly” to expose them for the cowards that they really are. Phil, according to what you have said above, you would have made the list.

    Here is a Google Doc i’m saving to keep emails Roderick has sent me AFTER requesting that he STOP emailing me. You can see how far that got me. Everything underneath my initial request is all Rod’s doing. I have never emailed him since my initial request. I have asked others to do the same and they can produce a doc.

    Phil, what happened is very simple. Rod was a preterist for 15 years. Over the past 6 years that i have known him, he developed an obsession with “exposing” the more “liberal” preterists, namely focused on Virgil Vaduva. Any and everything somehow always came back to Virgil. When Rod was a PRETERIST, we would get onto him about it!

    And he started pressuring Sam and I at RCM to take up his obsession with Virgil and make a stand. It got so bad that i cut off communication with him, again, while we were ALL preterists.

    I didn’t hear from him in a month or so and then he showed up on our RCMLive podcast.

    He was on that second week for so long, some people were concerned we were making him a co-host.

    Shortly after these two shows, we had Jim Kessler on to talk about this whole “Covenant Creation” thing going on with some preterists, that both Sam and I do not hold to. It was then that Rod began pressuring us once again to be more bold with the “liberals”, to take a firm stand, to cut ourselves off from such people…we were too “nice” to Jim.

    And once again, i put my foot down and told Rod to stop. Interestingly enough, he “renounced” full preterism shortly after and now almost every argument that has been answered and rebutted by Roderick from the likes of Dee Dee is now embraced by him – a complete 180 turn.

    Rod says he embraced preterism as an over-reaction to dispensationalism. Well, that’s not what he said in our 3 part podcast in response to Dee and Gene Cook. There he said it was the result of reading John Owen.

    So which is it?

    The tradition argument was handled by Rod in those shows. Now he’s saying the exact opposite. So which is it?

    Phil, bottom line is that you have a person here who is an extreme control freak. And when we didn’t let him have his way, he bailed.

    And now the OBSESSION has more or less switched from Virgil to Sam. Again, visit and take a look on the right hand side at the tag cloud.

    Do you notice whose name shows up all nice and big?

    Phil, i eventually made it a policy on SGP to not mention these two by name, or post, or whatever, because this is the type of behavior you find in nuts who eventually show up one day at your door with a gun.

    Don’t say i didn’t warn you.

  44. Dorothy,

    I’m trying to get this – and as simple as possible – is the Full Preterist position not guilty of the same error of Hymenaeus and Philetus, in that they taught that the resurrection was in the past i.e. the Christ had returned already? (2 Timothy 2:16-18)

    Any school of thought that removes the hope of the believer is a dangerous, indeed heretical, one; for the resurrection is the hope and mainstay of the believer. As a matter of fact, Scriptures teach that we are saved by this hope (Romans 8:23-25).

    Kindly explain whether or not FP or any variant of Preterism fits in with this removal of our hope i.e. placing the resurrection in the past.


  45. Brian:

    I am always amazed at the energy people waste, on people they don’t have the time, energy or will to waste it on! I always find one other thing consistent on all those who make such statements; the ability to cast final judgment upon a person, instead of leaving judgment to God and his Christ!

    I see this arrogance from every former or ex-full pret and yet everyone accuses full or hyper preterism of this. I personally know of no Full or Hyper Preterist takes this attitude.

  46. Brian:

    Anyone can call anyone an enemy of the Gospel!

    Romans 11:28-31

    As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy”

    Even God said the enemies of the Gospel are beloved of the father and scripture tells each of us how to treat those we consider as enemies, either our own or those of the Gospel.

    I guess Love, Patience & Mercy are not in your capabilities. I pray one day that you find these.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr.

  47. Hi Yomi,

    Welcome to the discussion. Full preterism, aka covenant eschatology, fulfilled eschatology, etc. holds that the resurrection was in the past and the return of Christ took place during, around, or about AD70.

    The argument used for 2Tim is that they claim it only addresses the timing and not the nature and that no hyperpreterist considers the resurrection to be past at the time this epistle was written to Timothy. Therefore this text does not apply to them.

    If you look back up in my responses here, you will see a link to a response written by Dave Green to Matheson…and what I like about Dave’s work, is he is one who is quite honest about the fact that hyperpreterism is condemned by this text if their timing if off and the resurrection is still in the future. At least he is one who is honest here and doesn’t try to gloss it over.

    That alone should give people pause, but it doesn’t seem to stop them.

    The system they have in place has become pretty well developed but it’s enemy is the fact that they are questioning everything, some with this obsession that the Church lied to them. That’s where you see some of these off the wall doctrines starting to gain ground and they will ultimately destroy any semblence of Christianity from their ranks. Can’t happen soon enough imho. Shoot, if many were honest and totally revealed what they profess as doctrine, I doubt any new Christians would step into that camp much less a seasoned one. It would have kept me away but I can say it eventually did serve to drive me away.

    You know, when I first saw preterism in scripture I found Dave Green’s phone number and called him. I have to say, I was quite impressed with the study group I met with, not because everyone had it all resolved, but the fact that so many denominations were represented and appeared to be in agreement in the area of eschatology. In my mind, if this was indeed God’s revealing, then I fully expected those denominations to move into doctrinal agreement, but the opposite happened. The battle was won in favor of individuality and since then, I’ve seen a more rapid decline and I do expect that trend to continue.

    Anyway, yes the 2Tim violation is definitely applicable. Thanks for pointing that out.

  48. Dorothy:

    You wrote:

    When you demand that your interpretation of scripture hold with this statement “By claiming that Jesus didn’t return when he said he would makes him a failure or a lair?” you are in fact stating that for 2000 years Christians have been teaching a bald faced lie.

    Anyone else here have a problem with that thought?

    As usual, you’re only comfortable calling “The Church” those you agree with, for now. It changed before, it’s changing now and it will change again.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr
    GAP Evangelising

  49. Yomi:

    What wou expect an ex-full pret to say? Be reasonable. As best as I may be able to speak for Full Preterism; not one that I know of doesn’t believe all believers will be raised into the kingdom. We simply believe this happens individually and not collectively with every one going at once.

    Some call this resurrection because they fully expect the resurrection of the physical body. Full Preterism does not believe the physical body is needed for anything beyond physical death.

    Christ said: “It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits NOTHING” and he didn’t add “For now but will later” Full Prets believes this is instantaneous whereas Futurist Eschatology keeps postponing it.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr.
    GAP Evangelising

  50. Dorothy,

    You’ve seen a more rapid decline? Where? Because of what? Because a handful of you walked away?


    You ever notice how these anti-prets are always making these huge, broad, sweeping statements about what supposedly goes on in the world, and all that based on a few little spats with a handful of people on the internet?

    How do you know what most prets do?

    I just met around 15 for dinner last night and three of them shared stories of how they made it abundantly clear in their church where they stood – they aren’t hiding anything.

    I didn’t hide and was kicked out a week later. I didn’t hide when i attended a Sovereign Grace Ministries church in Florida either. I scheduled a lunch with the pastor, told him everything up front, and was welcomed to the church. Still have friends to this day.

    Fact is, nobody knows anything about how large or small preterism is – from the looks of my web stats, the visits have almost tripled this past year.

    You guys have to stop kidding yourselves with this supposed knowledge you claim, that i suspect you only keep repeating to comfort yourself.

  51. Hi Jason,

    Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Sam and I have disagreed over Virgil Vaduva and so has Roderick, Dave and others. He has consistantly behaved in a manner that is not Christian and Sam makes excuses. Like I’ve told Sam before and I’ll tell him again, some of this stuff is just not defendable. He needs to hold Virgil accountable…because as far as I know, Virgil is still unrepentant.

    I was listed on this website for a while and I see Virgil finally took it down but Roderick and Dave Green still have a place there…..With this post, I’ll probably make another appearance…

    Quote: Frankly, we’d just like all of this to cease but Roderick and his supporters continue to drag personal issues public by posting negative comments about us at every opportunity.

    And who did so today?

    And I hope Phil notices that Todd Dennis is now a topic of discussion at your site – maybe because he is now calling for those hyperpreterists hiding under rocks to come out and expose themselves to the light of day…

    Or check out Brian Simmons site where MG has waged a campaign and people need to pay attention to the Lily posts also.

    To everyone here: This is the tactics of the hyperpreterists when their “precious” view is called into question and it’s not just me under scrutiny, but it’s everyone who steps up to speak.

    All I can say is if someone out there is considering this view and following this discussion,

    And I’ll leave you with this quote and my comment from Virgil’s rant site:

    “Unfortunately, mocking turned into the art of mixing up our own words to make us appear as heathens and pagans to God and His kingdom.”

    Nahhhh – whoever crafted this statement is doing a very good job without us.

    I rest my case.

  52. Dear “Anonymous,”

    You’ve just proved my point. If “quickly” means “within a few years,” then if something didn’t happen you have only three choices:

    1): The statemement is based on God’s perspective of time, and not ours.

    2): The predicted event was subsequently postponed.

    3): The Bible is false.

    Whatever view you adopt will determine where you “end up.” The first two options are in accord with orthodox futurism, but the third leads into atheism.

    Simply ‘assuming’ that something happened because the Bible said it would happen ‘soon’ is illogical. Because of your misunderstanding of the very texts you use, you create your own “fulfillments” which have ZERO TEXTUAL SUPPORT. And that is 99.9% of your problem.

    It’s all in your head.


  53. Jerry,

    Honestly, I would like to know what your method of “evangelism” is. The flowery talk of love and mercy is well and good. But how a about a broken law, an angry God, and a wrath to come? Unless you preach these three elements, you do not meet the criteria of a Biblical evangelist. There are plenty of Hyper-Preterists that don’t believe in preaching the terrors of the law, because they think the law passed away in A.D. 70.

    Chuck Coty has told me that he doesn’t believe in evangelizing people. Also John Scargy prevented me from bringing this out to the public at that old viper William Hill’s site. So let’s get it straight. This betrays the utter lack of real concern for souls in the Hyper-Preterist community.

    The Gospel is a “package deal,” and not a pick and choose option. Either you’re delivering the whole thing, or your claims are fraudulent. If you do not preach the future second coming of Christ and bodily resurrection of the dead, you are not an evengelist but an imposter.


  54. Dorothy and Jerry,

    Thanks for your responses. I will take the issues at stake one after the other.

    First issue is that the Bible teaches in clear terms that the “resurrection” takes place at the return of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

    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?

    Can we address this?

  55. Post # 45 was mind.My apologies or forgetting to sign it and Thanks for Phil for letting it post.

    Dorothy said “By claiming that Jesus didn’t return when he said he would makes him a failure or a lair?” you are in fact stating that for 2000 years Christians have been teaching a bald faced lie”.

    Your statement is alarming to say the least and also very revealing of where there seems to be a problem between us.It appears you along with other “hyper-futurist” have decided that since you can’t refute “Biblical Preterism ” with the scriptures like debates within Christianity have been held “historically” ,you guys will now change the rules and move the goal post back another 25 yards for us by requiring the true test of history.I find this very disturbing and believe most fair minded people will agree.

    First show some scripture that supports your view of history being a witness.You can’t.So your view is not scriptural to begin with.I can show you and i will where the scriptures are required to “test all things”.

    2 Tim. 3:16-17 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

    Acts 17:11-12 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.

    There are many more but i think the point is made.What you are claiming is nothing but ROME.Pure and simple.The RCC was built on traditions and to this day they still claim it.So go ahead just go back to Rome it’s the “logical conclusion”.

    For 2,000 years we have had the false predictions of the second coming and it still goes on today.How many more hyper-futurist” will leave the church for atheism before you guys wake up and see the damage you are doing by relying on the “traditions of men” making void the word of God.

    Your traditions gave us the crusades,Salem witch trials,rapture theory and don’t forget Jim Jones,David Koresh.


  56. Brian

    1): The statemement is based on God’s perspective of time, and not ours.
    Answer: God is outside of time,he created time for man.

    2): The predicted event was subsequently postponed.
    Answer: God does not have plan “B”. To suggest he does is questioning his sovereignty.

    3): The Bible is false.
    Answer: There it is Brian,following your logical conclusions that would be true and the reason so many “hyper-futurist” have abandoned the faith.

    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?

    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.

    Many skeptics have used this very idea against hyper-futurists who believe that a yet physical return of Christ was prophesied.

    Because such has not occurred, they denounce Christianity and the Bible.

    However, when Christ’s return is properly interpreted as being a figurative coming, in connection with Jerusalem’s fall (Matthew
    24:30, 34), then the apparent problem is easily solved.


  57. Hi Jason,

    Numbers: Hmmmm….how many do you have on site? I happen to know some of them and they don’t hold your view of doctrine – preterism yes – but their other doctrines are “way out there”?

    I visited Dave’s site where he said he had about 250 members in 2004 or 5 – that’s now been removed so I couldn’t confirm the year (Dave is welcome to if I get it wrong here)…and it’s taken 3+ years to add 50? Also, out of the two groups that report 300, if you have ever checked the membership lists, you will find lots of bounced email addresses (no longer valid) and there is usually a segment of spammers that remain on the list. Why? To keep up the membership count so it makes the list look bigger? I don’t know. It’s not like these are real “people”. Maybe it’s just a matter of “housekeeping” but it does distort the numbers.

    I don’t know how long you’ve been around, but have you looked at the names on those lists and seen how many are missing in action now? I’m not talking the silent ones…I’m talking the vocal ones. They just aren’t around anymore Jason and I don’t see the same caliber replacing them.

    Ed Stevens had a female preterist list that has been silent for years and last I checked was filled with porn spam.

    So yeah right, the membership is growing. If it’s growing, show me the numbers and even if you could prove an increase, have you ever considered how many hold sound doctrines? We are well aware that an arminian will fall right into universalism because that is the logical conclusion of their belief system.

    Jason, I hate to break it to ya, but they just aren’t there and I’m reading more and more about people who have looked into the view and walked away from it, finding it wanting.

    As far as people speaking out about it, well I think anyone here can take a look at those who have, see the reactions, and understand why some just disappear from the radar.

    Jason, I know you really like Sam and I know you think FP is the final answer. Fine…but why can’t you live with the fact that I happen to disagree with you on this point? I ask because I sure don’t see your group of FP’s go after the universalists, or the emergents and all their false beliefs. It’s funny that you’re pretty silent there, but so obsessed with those of us who feel we have found enough error and have abandoned FP as a viable system.

    Your a smart man – doesn’t this just reak a little of an unfair weight and measure? Why is it that there appears to be an obsession with attacking those who withdraw and talk about their concerns? It isn’t healthy Jason. If you all were as diligent about keeping you own house clean, then I wouldn’t think twice about your presence here….but quite frankly…you aren’t diligent in that area, so I don’t place a whole lot of weight on your input here. Sorry….

  58. Hi Yomi,

    Yes – please address the resurrection. While there are hyperpreterists claiming I can’t refute HP scripturally…because I will not cowtow to their timing demands on presentation, I have no problem with you taking the reigns here.

    I will warn you that I know of no FP posting here, other than one, who will accept any scriptural argument. I witnessed this phenomena when debating the universalists. It has become quite common for them to claim victory before they ever go to battle. It just goes to show that their timing sequence is a little off there also….

  59. MG,

    I would love to continue our conversation, but your claims are so over the top that I doubt anyone here needs me to address them or clarify the problems.

    Your argument isn’t with me. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I don’t engage when people do that. It isn’t just because you hold the FP position. I’ve done it with others on this site.

    Have a nice day….

  60. Hey Phil
    Without writing a whole book let me answer your question with just the short answer.Then if your interested we can get more involved.
    I would say 64-68 ad.Most agree Peter wrote pre 70ad and Peter wrote about the things happening that John (REV) had written would happen.So i think it’s safe to assume John wrote Revelation 64-68 ad.
    Thanks for the question.

    Maybe one of the reasons some preterist groups seen to have lost members is the fact that now there are many other web sites and email list.So the many are spread out over many more sites.Also i would say discussions that rely on emotions and not scripture have also contributed to a lack of participation by many preterist.Who wants to subject themselves to the hideous aspersions the hyper-futurist love to spread.By the way if hey were losing so many people what are you hyper-futurist worried about?

    The fact is your UNscriptural attacks are driving more and more people into investigating “Biblicl Preterism”.And with solid Scripture support more and more are becoming “Biblical Preterist”.So thanks!!!

    By the way,your cheap at Ed Stevens is a perfect example of how hyper-futurist love to wallow in the mud.

    “Ed Stevens had a female preterist list that has been silent for years and last I checked was filled with porn spam.”

    SILENT FOR YEARS!! Maybe Ed isn’t aware of the ad’s??YA THINK!!!
    But no in hyper-futurist fashion you have to try and attack the person. Hey,when ya got no scripture that’s all you hyper-futurist can do.
    Merry Christmas..OH wait,you don’t participate in that pagan Roman tradition do you???


  61. MG,

    You say this hope of the believer has been realised?

    1. If the hope was realised thousands of years before I believed, in what hope did I place my faith then? By what hope am I saved; for Scriptures say we are saved by this hope?

    2. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, where are the accounts of eye-witnesses to Jesus’ return; for Scriptures speak of a visible appearance of the Lord, not a secret return?

    3. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, why are we still existing with flesh and blood? Scriptures say that when the Lord appears, we shall ALL be transformed, become immortal, have spiritual bodies, and forever be with Him from then on.

  62. MG,

    Your statements aren’t even worth responding to. I know you’re wrong. You know you’re wrong. We all know you’re wrong. If during 1,900 years of church history, you can’t find ONE PERSON who arrived at the truths of eschatology, then there’s nothing I or Phil or Dorothy or anyone else on this forum can say to convince you. And if 2,000 years of Christian teachers had it all wrong, you yourself can’t expect to be taken seriously.


  63. MJ

    How dare you question my statement about Ed Stevens.

    Do you even have a clue about the history between Ed Stevens and I. Let me enlighten you. I was the one Ed asked to help bring that list back to life…but there were some issues on that list with a federal headship household where the full pret husband had renounced his faith, leaving his wife and kids to suffer his new ungodly lifestyle. Guess who dealt with it MJ?

    I sent two messages to Ed about the state of that list, so for you to accuse me of taking cheap shots just reveals that you’ll stoop to any method to advance your “precious” doctrine.

    Ed and I have talked about his rapture theory privately, so I can talk about it too. I have a high opinion of Ed because he holds to doctrinal lines.

    Also, when Ed asked for help cleaning up the lists from the universalist invasion, it was Roderick, Dave Green and I who labored to remove their God mocking platforms, restore the lists to some semblence of soundness, and promote the need for tighter control. Where were you in that battle MJ? Are you one of the ones who sold truth for the sake of numbers or the mantra, lets just all get along while the universalists were hot and heavy in recruiting membership from the ranks?

    Ed stood against those things and I stood shoulder to shoulder laboring with Ed in that battle. So don’t you dare you come here accusing me of taking a cheap shot at Ed.

    Next time you want to take a cheap shot as someone, you better know who your talking to. Mark C isn’t the only one with unpublished copywrite material in his files, nor is he the only one who took phone calls, and yes, I was included on many of the back room discussions that the membership isn’t privy to, so know right now, that I’m being very careful and courteous about what I’m revealing here because I don’t happen to believe that raking people through the mud, beyond what is necessary, is an effective method of making a case.

    Can I do it? You betcha…

    You’re upset about my statement that FP is dying. Well, MJ, I don’t have to look at list numbers to know that. I know it because so many who promote it will marry it to any “whore” of a doctrine or belief system as long as it promotes fulfilled eschatology and I can tell ya right now, God is not mocked.

    Now if you intend to continue in the manner you have been, do me a favor and don’t let the door hit you in the rear. BUT if you want to have an honest discussion, then pull up a chair, mind your manners and we’ll get along just fine. Your choice.

  64. During the early days of Mormonism there were a few original main advocates that began to doubt it. They doubted it on two levels;

    1. Because the theology was bad
    2. Because the characters of the leaders was corrupt

    I believe we are at this point in hyperpreterism. Many of us now ex-hyperpreterists initially joined with that group because we either had little knowledge of the history of Christianity (& the history of hyperpreterism) or we, like many now within hyperpreterism could not find a place within established churches (perhaps due to the contrary, anti-social & aggressive nature which we see displayed even now by some of the hyperpreterists posting to this blog).

    One such so-called “defector” from the so-called “truth” of Mormonism was a man named Oliver Cowdery. Instead of going away quietly (much as the hyperpreterists want us to do today), Oliver spoke up.

    Oliver began to openly question Mormonism & its leaders, though he was at one time considered one of the “witnesses” (original founders) to the so-called “golden plates” that Joseph Smith jr. claimed to find.

    Oliver was eventually thrown out of the Mormon “church” for accusing Smith of affairs & joined a Methodist church. In fact, Oliver & another “defector” were “roughly” put out of the Mormon congregation, driven into the streets & robbed by the Mormons (John Whitmer’s History of the Church, Modern Microfilm, SLC, p. 22)

    The Mormons in an attempt to discredit Oliver AFTER he left, claimed he had committed adultery & joined “a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs”.

    But what I find most interesting & ironic is what Joseph Smith jr. said about these “defectors” who were going around telling the truth about Mormonism & its leaders:

    Joseph Smith said Dec 16, 1838, “Such characters as McLellin, John Witmer, David Witmer, Oliver Cowdry, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.” History of the Church, Vol 3, p232

    What do the hyperpreterists on SGP say about those who leave the cult of hyperpreterism & publicly recount what hyperpreterism & its leaders are really about?? They say our names are not to be mentioned at all on their sites.

    Folks, they don’t want to mention our names because it is not good for new members of hyperpreterism to know where they can go to ask first-hand questions about hyperpreterism & its main leaders. Even now, they are telling Phil here to “privately” send emails to Sam & Jason to inquire about me. Why privately???? I’ve said everything openly & publicly for all to hear & see. My policy has always been “let your yes be yes & no be no” (Mt 5:37).

    I have had hyperpreterists, including the “scholar” Sam Frost literally tell me to “F*&^ Off” yet some hyperpreterist is trying to tell Phil that I am engaged in “Vulgar, carnal language, personal attacks, deception, and a paranoid obsession”. Sounds just like how the Mormons treated their “defectors”.

    These same hyperpreterists claim Todd Dennis defected due to “personal problems”. Why can’t hyperpreterists understand that people CAN & DO leave their cult due to the fact that we realize hyperpreterism is a heresy?

    I’ve had hyperpreterists threaten to harm me physically. I have had them run vampire scripts against my website in an attempt to shut it down. I have had them claim my wife is forced to take birth control pills & work while I have no job (all lies). I have had hyperpreterists threaten to harm my wife & daughter unless I shut up. I have had hyperpreterists claim I am a homosexual (another lie). I have had hyperpreterists even as recent claim I was arrested in 1990 in NY (where I have never lived) on drug trafficking & sent to prison (more lies). Again, ALL false charges in an attempt to silence anyone who has inside information about them & their movement. Why do you think so many are here now trying to silence Dorothy?

    Phil & readers, hyperpreterism isn’t just a alternate eschatological opinion — it is even as hyperpreterists claim, “a radical paradigm shift” — so radical that it is nothing like ANY THING that has EVER been considered Christian. One hyperpreterist, mentioned in a earlier post as one of the authors of a hyperpreterist book response they are trying to publish even equated the Gospel with Eschatology:

    “I will be interacting with both of these authors [Ken Gentry & Thomas Ice] throughout my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse since they have both sought unsuccessfully to disprove exegetical preterism or my favorite term – Gospel Eschatology.” (hyperpret Mike Sullivan from a paper called “Gospel Eschatology”)

    So Phil & readers, realize that hyperpreterists do NOT see their hyperpreterism as a “non-essential” side issue, they see it as part & parcel to the Gospel. They will claim if you don’t believe what they claim then you don’t believe the Bible. Again from hyperpret 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.” — hyperpret M. Sullivan on equating his hyperpreterism with the Gospel.

    Oh sure, they will play nice with you up to & until you really & boldly start rejecting their heresy & then the masks & gloves come off.

    Dorothy & Phil, I will pray for you & help you in any way. These people will now be on the war path to shut you up.

  65. Yomi:

    You asked:

    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?

    You begin with a false premise. You can not box all Preterists into 70 AD, that is an argument from outside preterism. Don’t forget what Dorothy & Roderick and others are promoting what they call partial or historic preterism so don’t leap too fast.

    I can only guess that your definition of resurrection is that the dead rise up out of the dead? You lock it into a physical resurrection from the beginning and Full Preterism does not believe it relates to the physical bodies: Examples are given in scripture but this is the shadow/type and not the true.

    Scripture says everything you experience in a carnal/physical world will eventually decay, rot, rust. All things that are seen are temporary. The eternal is infinite and invisible. Christ said “I AM the resurrection” The majority of Christianity teaches that Christ also raised the dead when he preached to the spirits in prison for 3 days anf 3 nights when he was in the heart of the earth. This is life from the dead, resurrection.

    Finally: Christ said “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” in John 5:25 “And now is” has been swept under the rug.

    I will simply reverse the question posed: If the resurrection did not begin or take place in the 1st century, weren’t those living then, lied to? Paul told people living at that time that they would not all sleep. Who were they? They were people living then!

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr.
    GAP Evangelising

  66. Brian:

    You wrote:

    “The Gospel is a “package deal,” and not a pick and choose option. Either you’re delivering the whole thing, or your claims are fraudulent. If you do not preach the future second coming of Christ and bodily resurrection of the dead, you are not an evengelist but an imposter”

    #1) Show me one human who knows it all and has it 100% figured out and I will listen.

    #2) Everyone picks & chooses: Which is evident when you say soon doesn’t mean soon, shortly doesn’t mean shortly, near doesn’t mean near, nigh doesn’t mean nigh, now doesn’t mean now and this generation doesn’t mean this generation.

    I will yield to a response from MG:

    “For 2,000 years we have had the false predictions of the second coming and it still goes on today.How many more hyper-futurist” will leave the church for atheism before you guys wake up and see the damage you are doing by relying on the “traditions of men” making void the word of God.

    Your traditions gave us the crusades,Salem witch trials,rapture theory and don’t forget Jim Jones,David Koresh”

    I could add many more. These things are something else that exists, is truth, that you deny by claiming its minority status as not being representative of YOUR ideal Christianity. You are no different than your predecessors. YOU are right and veryone else who disagrees with YOU is wrong and history has taught us one thing about religion and Christianity specifically, all you have to do is label something heresy and by doing so, the masses know they are not even to look into or consider it.

    Why? Because of excommunication, execution & persecution. The exact same reason why many faiths say the Bible is heresy and should not be considered. Religious control is all it boils down too.

  67. Dorothy,

    1) IF you had read my response on SGP to Mark, you’ll see that your departure means very little to me. I didn’t lose a second of sleep.

    2) I had said above that “Fact is, nobody knows anything about how large or small preterism is…”

    If you know anything about me, then you should know that i do not adhere to empiricism; thus my comment above. I don’t know how many prets are out there and neither do you.

    So any comments from anyone about how many pret churches there are in the world; about how “most” prets behave; about whether there is a rise or fall; and so on is completely asinine.

    3) You don’t know what i do or don’t do. Do you have my email/phone/house bugged or something? Again, this is what i’m talking about – you guys have to “create” this massive, general, sweeping claims to make yourself feel better. You guys act like your omniscient or something.

    How does Rod know how many pret churches exist in the world?
    How do you know what preterists are doing in churches throughout the world?
    How do you know what i spend my time doing? Do you follow me on other sites – youtube, facebook, the atheist forum im on?

    You don’t.

    You’re not omniscient.

  68. Phil,
    Out of respect for you and your genrousity i will refrain from using hyperbole.Such as “hyper” or “cult”.

    What you will notice in this debate is that how quickly the “futurist” will become overly emotional. Look how quickly the ad hom’s and straw man arguments came flying once you corner them with scripture.

    First let me say that if Christianity was measured by the same standard on how many people have walked away ,it would be considered a failure.It’s just a red herring futurist use to dodge the issues. They want to rely on the writings of uninspired men.What i would call another form of humanism.Preterist think the words of Jesus and the inspired Apostles should be the final authority.

    Take Dorothy,Roderick,Yomi and Brian and out of the four of them,you’ll get 10 different versions on the second coming.To my knowledge the church has never held a council to settle the issue on the 2 coming.

    Another one of their ploys is ” Because the characters of the leaders was corrupt”. Well, let’s take a look at a few of the futurist leaders that have fallen just in my life time..Don’t worry i won’t bring up Jim Jones or David Koresh again or the 2,000 yrs of false predictions..Sorry,couldn’t help it.

    1.Ted Haggard, the former senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, had to resigned amidst accusations of sexual misconduct

    2.Jimmy Lee Swaggart in 1986 exposed fellow Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman, who had been accused of having an affair with another pastor’s wife..

    3.As a retaliatory move, Marvin Gorman hired a private detective to follow Swaggart. The detective found Swaggart in a Louisiana motel on Airline Highway with a prostitute, Debra Murphree, and took pictures of the tryst

    4.Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker fund raising activities between 1984–1987 underwent scrutiny by The Charlotte Observer newspaper, eventually leading to criminal charges.Also had an affair.

    I could go on all day here,but i think you get the point.Notice these are all futurist.Looks like thy have more then eschatology in common.Money and sex seems to be a weakens for them…hard to tell them from the politicians.

    Notice how they plead for history .Well let’s share some.

    1.Pope Boniface VIII “To enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more of a sin than rubbing one’s hands together.

    2.The most infamous pope in history was probably pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) who had seven illegitimate children as a cardinal, which he openly acknowledged. As the newly-elected 61 year-old pontiff, he had an affair with a 19-year -old married woman.

    Yes i could go on all day about how all through history there have been corrupt and immoral Christians leaders.But Roderick wants to imply that only preterist have moral issues.I’m sure Roderick is without sin??? Yeah right huh Brian!

    By the way, every preterist was a futurist first so i think it’s safe to say more people have walked away from futurism then preterism. But who is counting?

    Last but not least here is a quick history lesson for the history majors .

    Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and preeminent Church historian wrote in the Theophania .” We can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus, how these things took place in their localities, and how those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were, in fact, fulfilled.
    This a very short part of what he wrote.And there are many other writings,too many to post here,but i someone is interested in truth,they ca find them.

    The Second Coming occurred in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem: any other “coming” your waiting on is a third coming not promised in Scripture.

    Thanks Phil.I think this thread has run a good course.

    MG not MJ 🙂

    Phil: I agree this discussion has been good so far. There is definately a history between many of you. My hope is that you all set aside your past personal interactions and debate this topic solely on its theological merits….

    Is there or has there been corruption through the ages? Absolutely. What is incorrubtable is the Word of God. Let’s stand on this alone in our discussions and leave all the pettiness and bickering behind and search for the truth….What do you say people?

  69. Hi Jason,

    I think if you review my post to MG on why I know FP is dying, then you will see why I don’t need numbers and why the existing sites are in such slow to no growth mode.

    I’m also glad you brought up the “don’t care” attitude because that’s another characteristic I’ve found in FP. If you hold to the position quoted by Rod from Mike Sullivan, then to make this statement is to say you don’t care about your “brothers and sisters” In Christ.
    Funny, because Sullivan had the same attitude. It’s a “ME and my precious doctrine” attitude and if I just don’t happen to swallow the whole pill, you could care less even though there are some who consider this a salvation issue. Incredible….

    You know Jason, as crazy as it may seem to you, I do lose sleep over you…and those who have been seduced by hyperpreterism. I have walked the floor in prayer over Virgil with his antics and many others over the years and I’ll continue to do so but know that I’ll also continue to speak out against your position.

    You are only witnessing the beginning…..

  70. Jerry,

    Pardon my misuse of the term, preterism. I meant Full Preterism (what Dorothy started out dealing with). If that is settled, shall we proceed?

    I am finding it difficult to follow your submissions on the resurrection, because as far as I can see they contradict Scriptures.

    Scriptures clearly teach a bodilly resurrection (not flesh and blood, but a body all the same). And Scriptures teach that it takles place at the return of the Lord.

    1Th 4:14-17 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
    For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
    For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
    Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.


    1Co 15:42, 44 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
    It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body

    Now, my questions again:

    1. If the hope was realised thousands of years before I believed, in what hope did I place my faith then? By what hope am I saved; for Scriptures say we are saved by this hope?

    2. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, where are the accounts of eye-witnesses to Jesus’ return; for Scriptures speak of a visible appearance of the Lord, not a secret return?

    3. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, why are we still existing with flesh and blood? Scriptures say that when the Lord appears, we shall ALL be transformed, become immortal, have spiritual bodies, and forever be with Him from then on.

    I need specific answers to these questions please.

  71. In regards to comment #74

    1. It was ALWAYS wrong for this MG person to depict historic Christians as “hyper” anything since hyper means to go beyond the original intent & scope. It is just plain disregard for terminology for someone to call us “hyper-futurists”.

    2. Hyperpreterists, in their false appeal to the Bible MUST rely on very supposed “uninspired men” they so much disdain. Let any hyperpreterist open to the very first page of their Bible & explain to us why they believe the table of contents? Who has told us there are only 66 books, no more or no less? Hyperpreterists are hypocritical with their appeal to the Bible.

    3. The typical hyperpreterist claim that there has never been a council on eschatology shows their ignorance on WHY councils were held, from the very first Church council in Jerusalem. Councils were only held to address when a heresy arose. The reason there has never been a council on eschatology is because for 2000 years, all of Christianity has believed & AGREED upon exactly the 3 things hyperpreterists deny.

    Hyperpreterist MUST try to paint the Church as a failure.

  72. Hi Roderick,

    When you first talked about the Church of Christ link, I really didn’t make all the connections. Your post here about why hyperpreterists have to paint the Church as a failure filled in some blanks for me. Thanks.

    You are most certainly right – there has been no need for a council on eschatology because the Church has been in agreement….and for a HP to get their belief on the table they have to paint the Church as a failure and note that the “CHURCH” is comprised of “CHRISTIANS”.

    What’s important to realize is that in hyperpreterism as in the Church, the CHURCH is only comprised of God’s people, so when they say CHURCH, they know full well what it means. We all know the visable Church has non believers in the pews and sometimes in the pulpits, but notice how some have to pick up on the atrocities commited by the CHURCH and can’t seem to discern or account for the fact that evil men do exist within the confines of the visable Church. What defeats their position is the items that have been consistant in the creeds. The thought that a group of evil men met to write a false system into the creeds doesn’t hold up when you separate the work contained in the creeds by 100s of years, different groups of men, and it was still consistant.

    I now have to laugh at some of my comments while in that camp thinking we needed to rewrite the creeds…because now my question would be “why bother”. If the creeds and confessions are so bad and so filled with error and they taught that things madatory for salvation were just lies that have been perpetuated for 2000 years, then why waste the paper? Do they even realize they have just established the foundation for their work to be called into question? I think it’s pretty evident here how they feel about anyone doing just that….lol

  73. Jerry,

    You didn’t answer my question. You evaded it. I wanted to know what method you use to “evangelize” people. Do you preach a broken law, an angry God, and a wrath to come? If you do not, then you don’t meet the qualifications of an evangelist.

    I’ll tell you the same thng I told Charles Coty. The law is a plough that breaks up the furroughs, that the seed of the Gospel (good news) may find be planted. First the ploughing, then the sowing. Hyper-Preterism is NON-EVANGELISTIC because it teaches that the law passed away in A.D. 70. So nobody can ever get “Saved” by a Hyper-Pret “Gospel.”

    No farmer can plant seed without sowing first. By preaching grace alone, all you do is create Gospel-hardened sinners who don’t know why they’re under condemnation to begin with, and hence feel no need for repentance and forgiveness.

    Hyper-Preterism affects ALL AREAS of Christianity, and not just eschatology.


  74. Just a note on the growth of preterism – Thomas Ice wrote a book on on because it is “rapidly growing” (Introduction to End Times Controversy). as for speaking at conferences the last five years(I have spoke at all if not most of them), I can say without a doubt that I have met thousands over those years. Oh, it’s growing…if it weren’t would you pay attention to it as much as the opponents do? I mean, seriously, if we were nothing more than a group of people holed up in a compound somewhere, would you really consider it? How many theological tracts and books have been written from evangelicals against David Koresh? NONE! It died, literally.

  75. Dorothy,

    As one who affirms the sovereignty of God in all things, including the gift of knowledge and Christ as our “teacher” – No, i don’t lose sleep over much of anything.

    I don’t need to comfort myself with stats.

    I don’t believe one’s salvation is determined by whether they affirm preterism or not. I’ve neve made that argument.

    Though i believe there are some pratical problems you will run into as a futurist, i don’t believe your covenantal stance before was diminished one bit the second you renounced preterism.

    Are you in error? Yes. Are you all a sudden in jeopardy of salvation? No.

    But as i mentioned at SGP, you are one who just can’t seem to understand that and you want to project your inability to grasp grace on everyone else.

    I’m not Dave Green. I don’t buy into Dave Green’s argument. You INSIST that he’s right – even to the point of impying dishonesty with those that don’t – and want to make that MY problem.

    You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse us of doing – you just can’t seem to live with the fact that people aren’t going to follow your path and now here you are, losing sleep over it.

    Rod here is literally monitoring our site, checking for new members, and hunting down contact info, calling pastors, seminary profs, family, etc.

    I don’t see Phil doing that.

    If i didn’t “care” about doctrine, i wouldn’t be running two theology sites. Don’t confuse resting in the absolute sovereignty of God, with not “caring”. You got it twisted.

  76. by the way dorothy, you are more than welcomed to join SGP and converse there. but i’m not going to tolerate Roderickesque type baloney.

  77. Amen Dorothy, all the little debates people have with hyperpreterist Don Preston should be structured like this:

    CHRISTIAN AFFIRMS: God sent Jesus to the world to reveal & fulfill & also to hand-pick apostles to be the foundation of the Church, to give to that same Church its teachings/traditions as passed on to it via word or epistle (Eph 2:20, 2 Thes 2:15) & that the Church is not a bunch of lone ranger individualists making up their own “private interpretations”, but is a Body fitted together as One (Eph 4:4,16), and that God Sovereignly is guiding the Church down through history, insuring that not even the “gates of hades would prevail against it” (Mt 16:18) let alone that the Church would ever fall into apostasy & cease to be the true Church & preaching the true Gospel. That for 2000 years, Christians have been affirming the exact 3 things hyperpreterism denies.

    HYPERPRETERIST DENY: (all of the above, in complete contradiction to scripture, to history, to logic, to common sense, & to the totality of UNITED Christian witness)

    This is the real debate. Preston’s little used-car salesman tricks have worked only because he is allowed to spout his false premise & from that conclude his false conclusions all with the prim & polish of Rom 16:17. I know these comments will upset the followers of Preston, but they have to hear it from somewhere. They aren’t going to hear it on the hyperpreterist websites — those outposts are either too busy trying to get people to have “private”/behind the scenes discussions where they will try to dupe the listener out of sight of anyone else or they have totally introverted & are in full denial of what is going on.(Ps 101:5, 2 Pet 2:1)

    Hyperpreterists will become more & more introverted, because as you pointed out Dorothy, in the early days, not enough people knew enough about it to even refute it — but now there is a whole army of ex-hyperpreterists that know the “secrets” of the system/movement are are ready to do as the tag line of this blog instructs: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead EXPOSE them” Eph 5:11

    All the hyperpreterists can do is run for the hills or continue to show just how arrogant they are as hyperpreterist Mike Sullivan did in the quote I posted on comment #70 where Sullivan claims if people don’t believe hyperpreterism then they don’t believe the Gospel.

    Hyperpreterism’s hay-day is over….thank God!

  78. John Owens has dealt a swift blow to Roderick’s papist argument that the canon depends on the church:

    “Object. II. “It is necessary for us, in religion, to have the canon of Scripture certain: but this we cannot have, otherwise than by the church; because its authority is most certain, and the only one which is sufficient, to remove all doubts concerning the divineness of the Scripture out of our minds; both because God speaks by the church, and because the church best knows the Scripture. She is Christ’s bride, and therefore best knows the voice of the Bridegroom; she hath the Spirit of Christ, and therefore can best judge of his word and the style of it.”

    Ans. We deny that the canon of the Scripture cannot be known but by the church, and the contrary hath been already proved: the Scripture hath been owned and received where no such judgment of the church hath been. And it is as false, that the authority of the church is the greatest and most certain; for that of the Scripture, upon which the church and her authority depend, is above it. God speaks in the Scripture, and by it teacheth the church herself; and therefore his authority in the Scripture is greater, – the authority of him that teacheth, than of those by whom he teacheth: as the authority of a king in his laws, is greater than that of an officer that proclaims them. A king may, by his council or judges, acquaint his subjects with his laws; but will it therefore follow, because he speaks his mind, which is in those laws, by such officers, that their authority is greater than that of those laws themselves? God speaks by the church (the true church, we mean); but he speaks nothing by her but what he speaks in the Scripture, which she doth only ministerially declare to us: and therefore the authority of God and his law is above hers, who, though she publish, yet did not make it, but is herself subject to it, and by that law only stands obliged to publish it to others. And for what they say of the church’s ability to judge of the Scripture, we answer, that she cannot judge of the style of the Scripture otherwise than by the help of the Spirit, and by the same private Christians may judge too; and there be no means whereby the church can know the Scripture to be the word of God, but particular believers may know it by the same. And if the church’s authority be so great, in our adversaries’ opinion, because she can so well judge of the style of the Scripture, how much greater is that of the Scripture, which is able, by its style, to manifest itself to the church!

    Except. “But,” say they, “we do not know the voice of Christ in the Scripture but by the church; therefore her authority is greater.”

    Ans. This is both false and inconsequent: false, for it hath been sufficiently evinced that the voice of Christ may be otherwise known, and hath been, too; inconsequent, in that it follows not that the authority of the church is therefore greater than that of the Scripture. John Baptist directed many to Christ: and suppose, without his direction of them and witnessing to Christ, they had never come to him, will it thence follow that John’s authority was greater than Christ’s? The church, we grant, may be a mean whereby many are brought to the belief of the Scripture, who yet, afterward, do believe upon better grounds, as being persuaded by the word itself.

    Object. III. “We can no otherwise know the Scripture to be the word of God, than as we know what books are canonical, and what not – what were written by inspired men, and what were not; but this we can know only by the authority of the church. This is proved, because some books which at first were not received as canonical, the church did afterwards receive, as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Susanna, the books of Maccabees, etc.; the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second of Peter, second and third of John, and the Revelation. And books which are not canonical, are therefore not canonical because the church would not allow them as such; namely, the Revelation of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, etc. And, lastly, some books written by prophets and apostles are not canonical, because the church hath not determined that they are so.”

    Ans. To let pass what a learned Protestant largely proves, – namely, that it is possible to know the Scripture to be the word of God, and yet not know which books are particularly canonical and written by inspired penmen, – that it may be known that the doctrine contained in those books is of God, though it be not known whether it were written by such as were immediately inspired themselves, or had it from those that were, – in the primitive times, some not only good men, but churches too, did deny some of those books to be canonical which we now generally receive; and yet they did receive the word of God, and the doctrine contained in those books, though they questioned whether those books themselves were written by such as were immediately inspired or not. And do not the Papists themselves tell us, that the canon of the Scripture was not established for a long time after the apostles’ days, till it might be done by general councils? And yet, surely the church did in the meantime own the word of God, and know the voice of Christ.

    We say, then, that it may be known which books are canonical, and which are not, otherwise than by the church; for the church herself knows them otherwise than by herself, or her own authority. When she declares them to be canonical, she believes them to be canonical; and her believing them to be canonical is antecedent to her declaring them to be so. She must learn herself, before she can teach others: she believes them, therefore, to be canonical, because she sees the stamp of God upon them, and that they are such as can be of none but God. The same way, likewise, private believers may know them. And when the church sees this stamp of God upon a book, she thence concludes it to be divine, and then declares it to be so. ”

    The rest can be read here:

  79. Jason,

    I think the whole point you are missing is that through the consistancy of the creeds and confessions in the area of eschatology, the Church is declaring what she sees in scripture and I happen to agree with them. It is not a sound position to diminish the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing this to her over the last 2000 years.

    You are producing “one” man to support your case, but you must realize that the creeds and confessions were not the product of one man but a meeting of the minds in the Church and those minds have spoken consistantly all this time. This production of the mind of “one” man has not dealt a blow to Rodericks position as you assert.

    Since you place such great weight on the work of one man and can so easily dismiss the collective mind of many – was Owen a futurist or a preterist?

  80. Not sure about Hyper-Preterism… But Preterism as a system is definitely growing. Nevertheless that doesn’t make it a good thing. Homelessness and poverty are growing, too.

    As Preterism grows, at the same time information against Preterism gets put out. I just spent a major part of this past year writing against Preterism & Hyper-Preterism. Scott & Brian McPherson have written the best refutation I’ve ever read, and there are countless others who have taken these doctrines in hand and exposed their fallacies.

    The question to ask is, regardless of its growth, where will Preterism end up? Certainly not at some big party where some “new Reformation” is celebrated. Eventually, it’ll get the attention of the big denominations, who will properly relegate it to the theological scrap-pile. Like every other false doctrine throughout the church’s history, Preterism will find itself without coat, hat, or trousers.

    Preterism arises from a misunderstanding of the significance of A.D. 70. The destruction of Jerusalem WAS NOT an eschatological terminus bringing in the “age to come,” but the close of a Dispensation, when God’s principles of “administration” were altered. This distinction is vital.


  81. Um Jason, did you see me make any claim that it was a specific council that determined the canon? No, rather the canon was determined by general acceptance long before any official proclamation & so too by general acceptance before & despite any official councils has the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit & sovereign hand of God determined that the very 3 things hyerpreterism denies the UNITED Church does AFFIRM.

    Your twisted appeal to John Owen is as dishonest as your twisted attempt to find “seeds” of hyperpreterism under ever rock in history.

    As for hyperpreterist leader & presumed scholar Sam’s notion that hyperpreterism is growing. Sure it is loud as all radical groups are but he neglects to tell people that these conferences he attends are often filled with the same recycled 50-150 people. Heresies do have one positive effect — they cause the Church to RE-affirm with even more vigor & clarity its position. I see that happening over the years to come.

  82. Yomi:

    I’ve attempted, pathetically, several times to show you whay I believe what I believe and your only answers are to reiterate the exact same questions. It’s called going in circles!

    You asked 3 direct questions: Why? I don’t know but I’ll try one more time.

    1. If the hope was realised thousands of years before I believed, in what hope did I place my faith then? By what hope am I saved; for Scriptures say we are saved by this hope?

    I fail to see where scripture says our only hope is in a physically raised and translated body. I would hope that your hope is Christ in you: Colossians 1:27

    2. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, where are the accounts of eye-witnesses to Jesus’ return; for Scriptures speak of a visible appearance of the Lord, not a secret return?

    2nd Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

    Henceforth means “From this point or moment on” If Paul said, “From now on, we know Christ after the flesh no more” Who are we to argue or deny these words?

    Apparently you miss one of the key tenents of Full Preterism: “where are the accounts of eye-witnesses to Jesus’ return” This presumes your understanding of the return, not the Full Preterist perspective. For the record, Full Preterism believes he returned spiritually and not in a visible, physical body.

    3. If this hope was realised thousands of years ago, why are we still existing with flesh and blood? Scriptures say that when the Lord appears, we shall ALL be transformed, become immortal, have spiritual bodies, and forever be with Him from then on.

    Again, this understanding is forcing your belief and not even considering the Full Pret paradigm. Scripture & Full Preterist Eschatology both state there will always be humans on the earth. Isaiah 9:7. How could the kingdom increase forever, with nothing to increase from or with?


    You are clearly unwiling to accept one piece of Full Preterism, this is self evident in your writings. Not willing to be wrong means you can never be right as you will never accept the idea that you could be wrong on something.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr.

  83. Ahh, looky there. Still can’t have a conversation without bringing up Sam’s name. Obessesion, anyone? I’m beginning to wander if you work for Calvin Klein.

    You’ll notice a pattern with Rod. When Rod is taken to task on something, he’ll spend more time telling everyone how his opponent “twists” things then he does actually demonstrating how.

    Not backing down from the supposed Noyes/hyper-pret connection, i took Rod to task on this at CARM, and all Rod could do was whine that i was twisting things. He coudn’t handle the evidence and left the thread. He doesn’t have an answer.

    He’ll move on to his next irrational association guilt trip. Did i mention that he did this as a preterist too? Did i mention i cut myself off from him when he was still a PRETERIST?! Yeah, i’m fairly certain i did.

    Roderick says that i can’t know what books are in the canon apart from the church.

    “Who has told us there are only 66 books, no more or no less? Hyperpreterists are hypocritical with their appeal to the Bible.”

    This is the same ole tired argument the federal vision folks offered up. It is the same one catholics offered up. It was the same one a few guys from a “reformed” ministry in Tampa tried on Sam and I, which eventually led to the ministry’s demise because there were REFORMED men (postmills) IN THAT ministry who could not accept this popish doctrine that a few others in the group were pushing.

    John Owens handled it. Robert Reymond handled it in his Systematic Theology. Rod, why don’t you try that mess on some truly reformed men.

    And now Dorothy, not even addressing Owen’s rebuttal of Rod’s popish doctrine, wants to take us off path and asks about Owen’s eschatology.

    Notice too that Rod complains about his lack of church history while a preterist. SO?! What does that have to do with me or any other preterist? See, once again, we have a person who recognizes their own shortcomings and now wants to project their problems onto everybody else.

    It’s like they are embarrassed of how ignorant they were and now they want to drag everyone else in the mud to save face.

    Rod has an entire blog designed to create this allusion that all of us preterists came into the view the same way he did, with the same ignorance, with the same motives.

    Talk about a self-centered, presumed expert…who, also, is apparently omniscient to know all this stuff.

    Nostradamus here thinks he knows where preterism will be in a 100 years.

    Hence, Goderick.

  84. i find it troubling that Dorothy would equate my commitment to (1) logic and (2) Scripture as axiomatic starting point as diminishing the work of the Spirit.

    Some “reformed” have a problem with this – i don’t:

    4: All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

    I don’t care how many people got together; THAT, in and of itself, does not LOGICALLY necessitate that their conclusions were true. Appeals to numbers, etc., is a fallacy, plain and simple.

    The Westminster guys understood that. They were presuppositionalists who affirmed a commitment to logic.

  85. Dorothy,

    The Chalcedonian Creed affirms that we, today, are living in the last days. Do you affirm that?

    The Nicene Creed affirms that the age is “about to come”. Do you affirm that?

    Historic preterism and postmillennialism denies both: the “last days” lead up to A.D. 70, and “mello” (the Greek verb for “about to”) is used for that time as well (so argues Ken Gentry and other “orthodox” preterists).

    So much for your assertion that the historic church affirms the “majority of NT prophecies” as related to A.D. 70.


  86. Brian:

    The greatest thing about the written or spoken word is its wealth. The average response in a series such as this conjours up thousands of thoughts by its readers. I often wonder why I am asked questions about my Eschatology by those who claim to know everything there is to know about Eschatology and are convimced I’m wrong? I also wonder why I’m asked questions by people who have wrong pre-conceived notions about what I personally believe.

    Let me see if I can address your questions.

    “I wanted to know what method you use to “evangelize” people. Do you preach a broken law, an angry God, and a wrath to come? If you do not, then you don’t meet the qualifications of an evangelist”

    #1) The “Method” I use is hopefully 4-fold. Scripture, God, Christ & the Holy Spirit. I read, I write, I research and I speak.

    #2) “A Broken Law” I do not teach, profess or believe mankind is obligated to keep any law he can’t keep. What I do teach is that God is a forgiving God who knows our thoughts & intentions. I teach about a God that is ready, willing and more than able to interact with his creation at any time.

    #3) A “Wrath to come” I do not teach a singlular day or time yet future where God will nearly or completely destroy his creation, mankind or the planet.

    God is entirely soverign and can do as he chooses, at any time he chooses. I completely and fully believe that if God wanted to take mankind down to 8 (Flood) or 2 (Adam & Eve) again, who am I to place any limits on God by saying he can’t or won’t? While I do see typology for it in scripture, I do not see any specific prophecies of destruction that have not taken place. I don’t believe you could of come up with a better segway for me.

    Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    A quick review of Matthew 5:17-18 demonstrates that if all the law & prophets are not fulfilled (accomplished, not abolished) then none of it has passed; which would mean all of it is still applicable and enforcable.


    Was a Physical Temple required under the Law & the Prophets? Yes.

    Was a physical Altar required under the Law & the Prophets? Yes.

    Were animal sacrifices required under the Law & the Prophets? Yes.

    Was a Levitical Priesthood required under the Law & the Prophets? Yes.

    Was physical circumcision required under the Law & the Prophets? Yes.

    Jesus was quite clear when he stated “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” Not one thing; from the greatest to the least could pass from the law until ALL of it was fulfilled. Not one thing!

    Futurist Christians, Partial Preterists and even Historicists remove these requirements from the law by saying “But Jesus fulfilled those” Jesus said not one thing: NOT a Physical Temple , NOT a physical Altar, NOT animal sacrifices, NOT the Levitical Priesthood, NOT even physical circumcision (all items contained in the Law & the Prophets) would pass until ALL of it had been fulfilled.

    Final Question: Have ANY of these few numbered things PASSED?

    Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

    Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    Futurism must now add their yeahbuts: YES that says that, BUT that’s not what it means. YEAH that’s what that means, BUT it hasn’t happened yet. Futurism sees & recognizes this transition however they think it either hasn’t begun or it’s still going on, both of which deny numerous promises and leave Christ a waiting prince or a king of a kingdom with no subjects.

    #4) The “qualifications of an evangelist” Where is it written that one must “Preach a broken law, an angry God, and a wrath to come in order to be an evangelist”?

    “No farmer can plant seed without sowing first”

    Speaking from experience and growing up on numerous farns I can tell you “Sowing” is planting. When you sow a seed into the earth, you are planting it, you are burying it.

    I would ask you to read something I wrote recently.

    The Good News, YE are Free Indeed:

    “So nobody can ever get “Saved” by a Hyper-Pret “Gospel.”

    There is ONE Gospel: The everlasting gospel: Revelation 14:6 Which is the exact same Gospel that Christ brought which is the exact & only Gospel that “saves” There is no such thing as a Hyper-Pret Gospel.

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out where you get your ideas of what I believe, preach or teach. I preach repentence, forgiveness and the reason and need for both.

    You should really give up trying to explain what I believe, you haven’t even come close yet. The only way I am stuck in 70 AD is by people who stick me there.

  87. Jerry,

    Indeed, your attempts so far have been pathetic. The last time I ran into the sort of manipulation you are presenting was with the word of faith guys.

    1. Scripture ties Christ’s return with believers receiving transformed bodies, so the two cannot be separated.

    2. 2 Corinthians 5:16 simply means that the apostles no longer regarded anyone from a worldy point of view. They once regarded Christ that way, but at that point no longer did.

    How you can attempt to use the word ‘flesh’ there as a justification for a non-physical resurrection beats me silly. Another pathetic attempt from you.

    3. FP teaches a spiritual (hence conveniently secret) return. This is in contrast to what Jesus told the apostles (Matthew 24:30). It is also in contrast to what the rest of the new testament tells us (Acts 1:11. Revelation 1:7)

    4. The FP paradigm that you want me to give serious consideration to so far sounds like utter nonsense and a blatant manipulation of Scripture.

    Why should I be willing to accept any piece of such a paradigm? I have looked at it, and it is still very shocking. You, sir, need to kick back, take off those shades you have on, and study that Bible again.


    I am glad to know that you are out of this deception. As you can see from my brief exchange with Mr. Bowers, he is clearly uncomfortable with me asking questions from Scriptures but would have me accept his FP paradigm instead.

    I am satisfied that Full Preterism is heresy pure and undiluted. This is my last comment on this post.

    Hang in there, sis!

  88. Hi Yomi,

    The points you have raised here are some of the same I started seeing. They go over the top and there were some things I just couldn’t cram into their time tables.

    Then when I witnessed how quick they were to embrace every wind of doctrine that blew through, no matter how sleazy and God mocking it was, and the leaders kept turning blind eyes allowing it to be promoted, well, that was it for me.

    The current discussions on the flood issue are only on the table because one side has threated to consume the other. I say “move out of the way” and let them at it.

    I do want to say there are a couple within FP that do have a more firm foundation. I am waiting on them to reach the point where they realize truth does not reside in a belief system that is so quick to embrace error. Saying that, did you notice that is their very accusation against the Church – that right out of the box they claim she embraced error so they are on the scene to correct it. That’s the Cambellite connection….

    Phil has the next section, but I’m stepping past it to another one you may enjoy picking apart. Expect to see it after Christmas. Too much activity here for the next few days to do the topic justice.

    Hope you have a great Christmas.

  89. Hi Jerry,

    Christ stated quite clearly He did not come to abrogate the law but to fulfill it – bring it to full measure is a better word usage here. It is you who has abrogated it. The law is Holy Just and Good as Paul declared in Romans. It has a purpose in conversion and that’s where we have a problem today. We have ministers who don’t know how to use the law lawfully.

    It took me a long time to get my arms around theonomy and while I’m not a dominionist theonomist, I do hold that the law reveals the Holy and moral character of God and it quite necessary for conversion.

    Jerry, what do you preach repentance from? If a person has not broken a law, then what’s the purpose of forgiveness….you have a gospel with no sin penalty. You have a remedy In Christ – but for what? Do you see a problem here? This may explain why so many full prets defend their right to live ungodly or immoral lives and when caught breaking the law, have no conscience and feel no need to repent or ask for forgiveness.

    I’m glad you brought this forward because it goes a long way toward helping people here understand why so many in FP move right on into universalism…and why even the reformed camp was accused of bringing forth a universalist message.

    Brian is quite right here Jerry. You can’t claim evangelist if you don’t preach the Gospel in full measure. What you are currently preaching is antinomianism.

  90. Wow, notice how quick Jason has turned this into something personal (as hyperpreterists often accuse others of doing, but is typical of hyperpreterists as we see also with Jerry Bowers here). He isn’t even being honest since the CARM (another discussion forum) issue ISN’T as he depicts. Jason kept getting BANNED from CARM after just about every post because everyone of his posts were even more caustic then the ones you see here. I stopped posting on Jason’s threads because he was being even more caustic then even here. I “handled the [TWISTED] evidence” just fine…just as Dorothy has handled it here.

    As for everything else Jason posted, it again is a typical hyperpreterist ploy — pretend everyone else is whacked – never mind that hyperpreterism is by its very nature “whacked” since it tries to replace 2000 years of Christian interpretation with this revision (see also this link. BUT, hyperpreterist Sam Frost made an unwitting ADMISSION here on this blog. Sam said: “Historic preterism and postmillennialism…

    One of the things we have been battling hyperpreterists over is basic terminology (they even high jacked the wikipedia definition of preterism to spin hyperpreterism as if is valid). Hyperpreterists have a knack of re-definition but here Sam slips up. He admits that there is HISTORIC PRETERISM. Now, if there is HISTORIC PRETERISM then what do we call what has gone beyond the original intent & scope of that historic preterism???? We rightly affix to it the same thing we affix to that which goes beyond HISTORIC CALVINISM. When something goes beyond the original intent & scope it is called HYPER, thus just as it is accurate to call HYPER-CALVINISM so too do we rightly label what is being espoused by these caustic people, HYPER-PRETERISM. There you have it, even their presumed scholar SHOULD see this, but nope instead they come up with redefinition, twisting of history & inaccurate labels.

    Ok Dorothy, I’m ready for your next posting. Thanks again for this one. I think between seeing what you posted AND how the hyperpreterists reacted, I think the readers here have a good initial dose of what hyperpreterism AND hyperpreterists are all about.
    Maybe a postined called “Hyperpreterism: What to Expect If You Defect” 🙂

  91. Jerry,

    I hope everyone reads your above comment and takes note of what you said. You write: “I do not teach, profess or believe mankind is obligated to keep any law he can’t keep.” That’s just where you go off the deep end. The law brings knowledge of sin (Rom. 3: 20). And sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3: 4). Unless the law is still in force, there is no such thing as sin. “For where no law is, there is no transgression.” Romans 4: 14.

    Your statement alone tells me that your “evangelism” is spurious. Simply preaching love and mercy doesn’t do the trick, because you’re sowing on rocky soil that you never ploughed. The law is the schoolmaster that drives us to Christ. Paul said, “I had not known sin but BY THE LAW.” Romans 7: 7. Therefore, the only way you’re going to bring conviction of sin and repentance is by preaching a broken law. The law comes first, THEN grace.

    As for your point that the law and prophets were fulfilled (every jot and tittle) in A.D. 70, your absurdity is patent to all. The law and the prophets remain unfulfilled, because they look forwatrd to the New Covenant, where the converted Jews will be restored to their own land (Deut. 30: 1-10; Jeremiah 30: 31-40; Ezek. 37: 15-28).


  92. Hi Roderick and Everyone,

    Yes, I agree. It is time for another article….and God willing, it will be posted this coming weekend. I’m taking a short break to spend with my family.

    Until then, I pray everyone has a very Merry Christmas….

  93. YOMI:

    I manipulate scripture? Let me scroll up and read that again: Yup, that’s what it says. Wow!

    Matthew 24:1-34 has the words; ye, you & your 22 times, Futurism spiritualizes every signle one. Many would have you believe all 22 examples simply mean Christians or believers. Really?

    Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

    So all Christians or all believers are supposed to see this abomination? Well; since futurism says it hasn’t happened yet, that would mean no person who has ever physically died since could be a real Christian, right?

    Who’s manipulating scripture now?

    You were taught, you now believe and teach soon doesn’t mean soon, shortly doesn’t mean shortly, near doesn’t mean near, nigh doesn’t mean nigh, now doesn’t mean now, at hand doesn’t mean at hand, the time of the end wasn’t the time of the end, the end of the age wasn’t the end of the age, The Last Days weren’t the Last Days and this generation doesn’t mean this generation.

    That brings you up to about 50 verses you spiritualize.

    Maybe you’ll appeal to 2nd Peter 3:8 for your dating method? 1 day = 1,000 years? But is it roughly 1,000? exactly? Nearly? Precisely?

    With such a wonderful dating technique available, I wonder why people living over the last 2,000 years didn’t realize these last days would be in our lifetime, and not their own? Every generation since has sworn they are the chosen generation?

    Who’s manipulating scripture now?

    “How you can attempt to use the word ‘flesh’ there as a justification for a non-physical resurrection beats me silly. Another pathetic attempt from you”?

    Christ said “It is the spirit that quickens, the “FLESH” profits nothing” Better now? Or do you need to add “But it will later” at the end of the verse?

    Who’s manipulating scripture now?

    2nd Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, #1) he is a new creature: #2) old things are passed away; behold, #3) all things are become new.

    Why does Futurism, postponement doctrine deny these 3 realities? Are believers in Christ New Creatures or not? Are old things passed away or not? Are all things New or not? How many times do

    Who’s manipulating scripture now?

    Christ said “My kingdom comes not with observation” Good thing considering the things we can see are temporal. It’s a spiritual existence. God is Spirit!

    I will join you in bowing out of the conversation. It’s obvious we’re all wasting our time.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr

  94. Brian:

    Apparently, you missed the last line in that post:

    “The only way I am stuck in 70 AD is by people who stick me there”

    I said nothing about everything being fulfilled in or by 70 AD. Dispensationalism is simply another GAP theory, a constant postponement eschatology that will never see the light of day.

    Keep reaching for the stars:

    Jerry Wm Boers Jr.

  95. Rod,

    You can stop playing the omniscient game again. Tell ya what – how about you tell us all why i was banned that last time.

    Give us the details. Share with us the PM i received from the CARM mods and the rule i broke.

    You don’t have a clue.


    You left the thread because i pulled a quote from you saying that Cook and Russell can not be called full preterists; even though Mathison calls them all “hyper” and equates them with Noyes.

    Noyes believed he was in the millennium. Noyes believed in a future end. Noyes believed in a future and final judgment/coming.

    According to your own comments about Cook and Russell, Noyes therefore can not be labeled a full preterist and taught something “radically different” from preterists like King, Frost, etc.

    Like me being “rude” has stopped you in the past…Nope, you left because you’re in a corner.

  96. Dorothy:

    You should really pay attention. You wrote: “Christ stated quite clearly He did not come to abrogate the law but to fulfill it – bring it to full measure is a better word usage here. It is you who has abrogated it”

    A quick review of Matthew 5:17-18 demonstrates that if all the law & prophets are not fulfilled (accomplished, not abolished)

    I have already stated the law was not abolished. You wrote: “bring it to full measure is a better word usage here” I said accomplished, that’s the exact same thing.

    “Brian is quite right here Jerry. You can’t claim evangelist if you don’t preach the Gospel in full measure. What you are currently preaching is antinomianism”

    Antinomianism (from the Greek ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ἀνομία,[1] which is “unlawful”), in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities.[2]

    My “Laws” that I follow for morals or ethics are found in 2 commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul & spirit & Love thy neighbor as thyself. My reading of scripture and asking God for guidance is all I need. I need no man to tell me what is in the mind of God. If it’s in scripture, works for me.

    “The law comes first, THEN grace” What existed before the Law? Grace! Where there was no law, there was no transgression. Where there is no transgression, there is Grace.

    Stuff I really don’t get: “This may explain why so many full prets defend their right to live ungodly or immoral lives and when caught breaking the law, have no conscience and feel no need to repent or ask for forgiveness.

    I’m glad you brought this forward because it goes a long way toward helping people here understand why so many in FP move right on into universalism…”

    For one thing, I assure you there are 10 times the number of futurists becoming Universalist than there are Full Preterists. Universalism, Lawlessness & Immorality permiate every sector of society. Ex-Full Prets always want to make it seem as these are by-products of Full Preterism, this is ludicrous at best and stupid at worst.

    It’s when people have to get this petty because they lack the ability to use the verses presented that just makes me give up. Ad-Hom & Strawmen are ALL Ex-Hyper Prets have.

    I am not a Universalist, I am not Immoral, I am not Lawless, I do repent & ask forgiveness when I mess up and I don’t need anyone else attempting to explain what I believe or what they deman I must believe.

    Jerry Wm Bowers Jr

  97. Hey, I wonder how many Hyper-Preterists actually DID celebrate Christmas. Probably very few. Hyper-Prets are the only people I know who refuse to give honor to Jesus CHrist on the day of His nativity. They call it a “pagan holiday,” yet they don’t mind holding pagan concepts of the resurrection!

    The refusal to celebrate Christ’s birth comes from the “hoity toity” attitude of H.P.’s in general, who have drunk the exalted “Gnosis” and now believe they are wiser than anyone else.

    I had a Christmas eve dinner with two ladies from my church– simple kind-hearted people– and it pleased me to hear them mention such things as “the 1000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem” and the rapture of the saints. That is true Christianity, and despite their simplicity of understanding, I couldn’t add to or subtract from anything they said. What a difference between now and when I was a Hyper-Preterist. I would have scorned them.

    You see, when Christians turn the Bible into an esoteric riddle-book, they start to think we’re better than anyone else. This is how Hyper-Prets end up separating from real-life Christianity. In the end, they are just a cult.

    If you’re a Hyper-Preterist, my prayer is that you repent and accept Jesus Christ today, or be cast into the lake of fire when He returns.


    Phil: Are you saying a HP hasn’t accepted Christ? Can you clarify this for us please?

  98. Hi Phil,

    I’m saying that Hyper-Preterists have apostasized from the faith they first received. This was the faith that allegedly saved their souls. Therefore, by rejecting the one faith, it is just as if they never accepted Christ. The Bible is very clear that heresies are works of the flesh, and that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5: 20-21).

    The inspired apostle states that we are saved THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. (2 Thess. 2: 13). There can be no mincing around this issue. Either Hyper-Preterism secures someone a one-way ticket to the inferno, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then may as well just throw away our Bibles and embrace anything BUT Christianity.

    I know my words sound harsh, but if we really care about the souls of these folks, we’ll try to wake them up before it’s too late. By failing to preach hellfire, we keep Hyper-Preterists blind to their own spiritual condition, and they think accuse us of “picking on them.”


    Phil: Thanks….if I’m reading you correctly then even though HP’s hold to essentials like salvation by grace alone through faith alone then they aren’t saved?

    What would be the correct eschatological view then?

  99. Phil,
    Here is a perfect example of why most preterist just ignore Brian and Roderick.

    Their childish display exposes them for the religious fanatics that they are.

    If you want to waste a few minutes and visit their own sites you’ll see it’s mostly themselves and one or two others commenting back and forth to each other on how great they are.Seldom if ever do you see God glorified.Just hate filled rants.

    They eventually block anyone that refutes and exposes their hypocrisy from commenting on their sites.

    Brian has went so far as to threaten to expose me on his childish web site where he has pictures and comments about anyone he finds out is a Full Preterist.

    Roderick is no different.He scours the internet looking for places to spread his ignorance and intolerance by posting fanatical writings and attacking anyone associated with a full preterist such as peoples wives and friends.

    But then lies about where he lives to his friends and accuses people for being sinful while never acknowledging that he has committed the same sins that he attacks others for.Claims bad things happen to full preterist ad their family members because they are full preterit.Surely anyone can see the IGNORANCE in this.

    This is not Christian behavior and and i think most that come into contact with them eventually see their actions as un-christian,ignorant and childish.

    Roderick screams 2000 years of church history when it fits his agenda,but as a advocate for the home church movement he would have to ignore 2000 years of history that doesn’t fit his agenda..

    Brian claims his perverted view of hyper-dispensationism is rooted in history when in fact it’s a recent development by John Nelson Darby who developed the full-fledged doctrine of Dispensationalism as it is known today on the prophetic visions of Margaret McDonald born in Scotland.McDonald was fifteen years old in 1830 when she claimed to have received a Revelation of the State of the Church in the latter days. She would often go into trances and record visions of the end of the world.

    Sounds like some of the fanatical religious stars on TV today.

    So much for the claims of Church History.It’s just a ruse and an attempt to avoid the clear teachings of Christ and the inspired Apostles.

    Do Brian and Roderick claim to be new Christians now that they seem to imply that Full Preterist are not when they themselves were supposedly full ptrerterist?? So i guess so much for the calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints..Just more ignorance and hypocrisy.

    Keep it up guys.More and more people are hearing of the Fulfilled view thanks to your ignorance.God does work in mysterious ways.


  100. Phil,

    No, I don’t think they can be saved, because their eschatology throws the whole N.T. canon out of whack, leaving one in doubt as to what doctrines even “apply” anymore.

    I believe the correct system of eschatology is the one preached by Christ and His inspired apostles–plus nothing, minus nothing. The susbstance is: “Jesus was crucified, raised, and resurrected, is now sitting at the right hand of God, and is SOON COMING to judge the world in righteousness.”

    Although I am Pre-Mil, I consider A-Millennialists and Post-Millennialists my Brethren in Christ, provided that they base their doctrine on the authority of the New Testament canon. While interpretations may differ, ALL Christians believe that we have a CURRENT CANON of Scripture, which did not expire 2,000 years ago.


  101. Phil,
    This is why it’s so hard to have a discussion with guys like Brian.It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall.

    So Brian requires Full Preterist to adhere to 2000 yrs of church history for final authority on their eschatology.

    But now claims ” doctrine on the authority of the New Testament canon”. for A-Millennialists and Post-Millennialists to be his Brethren in Christ…

    Brian..when were you saved? When did you become a full preterst?? How long were you an unsaved full preterist before you became saved again??

    So Brian,how many times have you lost your salvation??

    Anyone else see the silliness in Brian’s ramblings??


  102. Phil,
    One last post as it’s obviously apparent that Brian and Roderick will only continue in their DESPERATION.

    Their utter refusal to deal with Biblical Preterisms arguments base on Scripture alone. Their obfuscation and caustic manner prove beyond doubt that they know that they cannot deal with the issues at hand.

    So, they resort to name calling, questioning our integrity,even questioning our faith.

    Hopefully you and your readers can see through their delusional unchristian tactics.

    You can take their arguments and exchange christian for preterist and have word for word the atheist argument against Christianity.

    Same straw man arguments with the same ad homs sprinkled with the same sarcastic demeaning remarks..
    That should give your readers cause for concern and raise red flags!


  103. MG,

    The following statement you made regarding Roderick needs clarification;

    “But then lies about where he lives to his friends and accuses people for being sinful while never acknowledging that he has committed the same sins that he attacks others for.Claims bad things happen to full preterist ad their family members because they are full preterit.Surely anyone can see the IGNORANCE in this.”

    If you have proof of this statement kindly post it. If not kindly retract and apologize.



  104. MG’s last post is just another example of Hyper-Preterism’s delusive mindset. He claims that nobody has presented Scriptural refutation of the Hyper-Preterist view. What he really means is that nobody presented proof enough to convince him. But if Hyper-Prets won’t listen to 2,000 years of Christian scholarship, why would they listen to us??? Fact is, we could give them 20 cartloads of proof, and they wouldn’t accept any of it, because their mind is already made up.

    Our job is not to convince them, but to expose them.


  105. Phil
    Thanks for the request.I appreciate your style.
    First let me say that i will never recant as nothing i have said is untrue.Notice you hear nothing from Brian or Roderick from my charges.

    The only thing i will apologize for is letting myself get drawn down in the mud with the anti preterist mudslingers and mudding up your great site.

    1.This is a quote Brian Simmons wrote @ December 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm


    I think you’ve got the wrong fella. The Roderick I know is from Illinois, and not Manhattan. Also, he’s 41 years old, which makes him to old to be “under his uncle’s supervision” in 1990.


    Unfortunately for Brian Roderick doesn’t live in Illinois but lives in Indiana.

    Of course at this site Roderick has this information posted.
    Username: thekingdomcomedotcom
    Name: Roderick Edwards
    Age: 40 Years Old
    Location: Alabama

    Now is it Indiana,Illinois,or Alabama?? Or is he from NY as one blogger at Brian’s site suggested?

    Now this is the same site Roderick used to post “I’d be careful with stuff by Mrs.XXXX — her husband is a hyperpreterist. Hyperpreterists believe 3 things: 1. That Jesus came back once & for all in the..

    This was in reference to a video of someone who had written a book and was interviewed on TV.Roderick has been known to spam anyone associated with Full Preterist .What was this person crime that Roderick needed to attack her? Her husband was a full preterist.Roderick just likes to spread his hate filled Christianity to the world.

    The level of the hate that Roderick is infected with can clearly be seen in his homophobic rants comparing Gay people with full prterist.
    Hyperpreterism is a distoration of Christianity as much as homosexuality is a distoration of human sexuality.

    Both groups want to revise what has been the “traditional” with their “new paradigms” — be it homosexuality or hyperpreterism, both are disgusting distortions of the NATURAL & INTENDED.

    Homosexuals behave the same way as hyperpreterists — both groups complain about being “banned” from participation in “normal” activities, be it marriage, or serving openly in a congregation, or being allowed to influence young hearts & minds. Both groups act like people are “afraid” of them & are just being “hateful bigots”. Rather, we Christians are called to oppose error even if it puts us at odds with “friends” & family.

    Some of the more revealing blog quotes from Brian concerning Roderick follow..

    On July 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm Brian Simmons Said:
    “Rod accepts the logic, but he is against Full Preterism. Why? Because the F.P. leaders rejected him.”

    On July 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm Brian Simmons Said: Now watch Roderick start railing at me! Snap, fat doggie!

    On July 28, 2008 at 7:07 pm Brian Simmons Said: Roderick,You don’t know anything about me, but you’ve already played fast-and-loose with my personal information which you had no right to use. I used the “N-word” to illustrate how you were and Dee Dee were treating me. The way I feel now, if I met you face to face I would probably call you an “asshole,” Roderick.
    You go ahead and publish all my emails, and I’ll publish all of yours. Go ahead, Rod. I dare you to meet me openly on your podcast. You tell me to my face everything you just said here, and we’ll see who is the first to back down. I challenge you to be a man and confront me openly on this.Otherwise, please close your mouth and go back to being “boring at Preterist Blog.”Brian

    On July 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm Brian Simmons Said: Roderick,Try taking the beam out of your own eye, before you criticize other people.
    On July 28, 2008 at 8:38 pm Brian Simmons Said: I’ve had to use very forceful methods when dealing with Roderick, because he is not amenable to reason. Apparently he has some kind of “God complex” where everyone must accept his views or be damned.
    On July 28, 2008 at 8:45 pm Roderick Said: MORE LYING from Brian Simmons — I spoke with you AT LENGTH one day, how else do I quote your N^gg%^ comment???

    On July 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm Brian Simmons Said:

    Rod, The fruit of all “foul language,” as well as raillery, discord, and division, proceed from the “old man.” See James 3: 13-16.

    Are you a perfect Christian who never swears occasionally? No, you’re human. You even claim to have had an adulterous affair back in your gangster days.
    On July 28, 2008 at 8:51 pm Brian Simmons Said:

    Rod, Because you had an adulterous affair, does that mean you aren’t a Christian? Think about it.

    One is left wondering if “gangster days” is not in reference to what the Lily person posted on Brian’s site concerning someone named Roderick Edwards.

    Well Phil I’m sure your as disgusted as i am reading this exchange from so called Christians.It appears one is homophobic and the other a racist and both hypocrites.

    I leave it to you Phil as to post this on your site or not.Ether way i will try and refrain from interacting with them.If you decide not to post it,please at least acknowledge that i did answer your charge.


  106. Phil,

    MG is just another ragamuffin cowboy who needs to be exposed. If I find out who he is, I’m pasting his mug and bio at my anti-preterist blog. Until then, let him sling away “ad libitum.” I’ve got nothing to say to anonymous individuals who aren’t man enough to come out in the open and tell us who they are.


  107. MG,

    Thanks for the response….

    Why does it matter where Roderick lives?

    Also, I don’t believe for a second that Roderick was involved in ANY court cases involving drugs…also there are plenty of Roderick Edwards worldwide. When this “Lily Jones” person posted that crap here I immediately deleted it…

    Can’t we just stick to Theology here people? I understand and appreciate you all have a “past” history together but can’t we put the personal aside and debate the issues?

    Let’s try and honor God here folks….ok?



  108. BTW, I just did an IP trace on “MG,” and he is operating near Agawam, MA. I have reason to believe that MG is actually John Scargy (pronounced “Shargee”), owner and operator of “Death is defeated dot- ning” and “World-without-end-dot-com.”


  109. Phil,
    Where Roderick lives is not important.I think the inconsistency is what is important.

    I agree with you that it was probably another Roderick Edwards that was involved with that case.Its not important either.But the behavior of these people is important.Look how Brian is so intent on getting my personal information so he can start a character assassination on me as he has done with so may others.

    You said “Can’t we just stick to Theology here people”?

    But look who it is that ignores that and continues to attack persons and not just stick with the theology?

    By the way Brian..your as bad a detective as you are a theologian.Kept it up Brian,like i said i have your picture and email address and lets see..your from North Carolina,right??


  110. In response to messages #108 & #114 & all the MG messages in between.

    First, I had debated whether MG’s comments even warranted a response since so much of it is unfounded & merely piece-meal pickings from things Brian had said (I’ll let Brian answer for his own comments).

    However, I will interact with the comments just this once on this forum.

    Let us do things orderly as the Bible instructs (1 Cor 14:40), so I’ll number the issues as MG presented them.

    #1 From post #108 MG calls us “childish religious fanatics”. Sure, I’ll wear that label since Christ calls us to have a simple, child-like faith AND calls us to love Him even more than our own mother, father, son or daughter. (Mt 18:3, Mt 10:37) I’d call that pretty much a FAN of Christ, wouldn’t you?

    #2 MG says in post #108 “[Roderick] scours the internet looking for places to spread his ignorance and intolerance by posting fanatical writings and attacking anyone associated with a full preterist such as peoples wives and friends.” Really? I thought I spent all my time over on the SGP site? Which is it? Please get your stories straight. But hey, you claim at the last line of message #108 that we’re actually helping to spread hyperpreterism. If so, then why are you so angry? Why are you trying to silence us? Again, get your story straight. As for “attacking” anyone, I’d say what you have posted resembles an “attack” whereas what we have done is merely EXPOSE the unfruitful works of darkness as in Eph 5:11, the very tagline of this website.

    #3 MG claims I “lie about where I live”. See his comments from post #108 & his supposed “proof” from post #114. First, let me say here clearly: I LIVE IN INDIANA. Always have. I have NEVER lived in Illinois, nor Alabama, nor New York. As for Brian forgetting where I live, hey ask him about that. Secondly, & MG you might want to put your glasses on for this & get out a dictionary — but guess which state would appear first in an alphabetical dropdown list of the U.S. states? Yes, that’s right ALABAMA. So, the reason the Godtube setting is the way it is is because I NEVER SET IT. So much for your “proof”. Maybe I should stop there since it is apparent MG is grasping for anything to stick. But let’s keep going.

    #4 In post #108 MG claims I’m a “home church advocate” & that such advocacy would be hypocritical when claiming hyperpreterists depart from 2000 years worth of Christianity. First, I am NOT a home church ONLY advocate. Yes, I looked into it & even interviewed some of the advocates & also interview the OTHER SIDE (see link). If can be shown that the early Christians met in homes, in the open, in apparently rented venues. for a duration of even 2 yrs (see Acts 19:9-10). Furthermore, Christians throughout history have met in catacombs (graves), they presently meet in alleys & abandoned building in places like China. And yes, Christians can & do meet in buildings they purchase just for that purpose. None of these meeting places is biblically superior to the other. Where ever two for more are gather in His name, there Christ will be also (Mt 18:20). Yet, when we speak of hyperpreterism, it is INDEED a completely foreign thing when compared to 2000 years worth of Christian belief. Hyperpreterists can’t get around this so they must do all they can to try to discredit those who are EXPOSING their unfruitful works of darkness.

    #5 Again in post #108, MG tries the typical hyperpreterist tactic of claiming hyperpreterists are merely holding to what Christ & the apostles taught. I ask then, what was it 2000 years worth of Christians have been holding to? Hyperpreterism MUST claim there has been a 2000 year conspiracy theory or that 2000 years of Christians have been too dumb to get what hyperpreterists claim. The arrogance is astounding.

    #6 MG in post #108 claims I think I’m a “new Christian”. Nope. I became a Christian at age 16. As for my adherence to the Calvinistic doctrine of “perseverance of the saints”, you can tell MG doesn’t really know anything about this doctrine since it means a Christian CAN fall-away for a time (as I did while embracing the unchristian teachings of hyperpreterism) & YET will eventually persevere — come back to correct teaching. While I was believing/teaching hyperpreterism, it was correct to treat me like I WASN’T a Christian & I suspect SOME hyperpreterists, really AREN’T Christians. One of the best examples is Augustine who for a time was a part of the heretical group of Manicheans but later renounced that belief & spent much time countering it. (see link) This is how I see God’s sovereign hand in the works here. People like Dorothy, myself, Brian, & others have had a complete view of hyperpreterism so that God could use us as tools to put down that heresy, just as Augustine & others had similar experiences.

    #7 From post #114, the warning for people to be careful of the writings of a hyperpreterist’s wife is warranted for a few reasons: 1) The hyperpreterist husband was promoting the book on a hyperpreterist website. 2) The book was being promoted via Christian websites, radio, & TV stations. I said nothing personal of the wife of this man, only that people should be careful since the wife apparently is trying to promote herself as legitimately Christian while her husband is an avid advocate of heresy. I even asked the woman to please write a book against hyperpreterism & I would surely buy it & help promote it. All of this is consistent with Eph 5:11. If the woman was selling a book completely unrelated to Christianity, then this would not have been an issue. Hyperpreterists seem to think they can believe/teach their heresy & it not affect anything else.

    #8 From post #114, I stand by my connecting hyperpreterism with homosexuality. I neither “fear”/phobia EITHER group. Both groups are constantly crying about “intolerance” & both groups are constantly trying to look for ways to make themselves legitimate. Both groups distort, one distorts human sexuality & the other distorts biblical/historic/Christian theology.

    #9 From post #114, again all the quotes by Brian, I’ll let Brian answer those. I suspect much of it he wishes he never said, but hey whatever.

    #10 From post #114, the implication that I am the same Roderick Edwards that someone found on the Internet that had been arrested on drug charges in 1990, is completely false. Guess what MG? There is more than one Roderick Edwards in the world (here is a sample). Again, I NEVER lived in NY. Don’t know even one person named Lily or Lillian. NEVER lived with my uncle. I have always lived in Indiana. Never been arrested for dealing drugs or any of the other stuff you are trying to make stick. But you know what, IF I was that Roderick Edwards, I’d be using that story as a testimony. What a glorious thing to show how awesome God is, if I would have been that person & had come to the Lord. But alas, I’m not as interesting as all that. Sorry to disappoint you.

    Now, I don’t care what MG (an anonymous poster at that) writes in response to this posting — I will not be responding. As Phil said, let’s talk about the theology.

  111. I will try and get an answer from Roderick here since he won’t post my queston on his hate blog.

    Yesterday i asked Roderick how he went about teaching his kids or family memebers or any one that he had wittness to over the years about full preterism that now he thought he was wrong and told and taught them a lie.

    I would very much like to know especially if he had kids that he exposed to full preterism and how they were affected and how they responded to this radical change.

    It appaers Roderick likes to post his tirades everywhere but doesn’t like to let people respond on his own site.That raises red flags for me.

    Phil: Hi Bill. Wanna do me a favor? Can you go to the thread above your post and help me out? There are so many that read this blog that haven’t the foggiest idea how to study and reach a biblical conclusion….can you please share your method with my readers? Thanks in advance!

  112. Frst let me thank Roderick for taking time to answer my comments….Well actually it should just be called more “shuck and jive” from Roderick.

    Appealing to Brian to answer for his comments about Rodericks adultery is a clear cop out on Rodericks part as he continues to compare those of us who hold to “Fulfilled View” to homosexuals and look for every speck of dirt in our lives while he implies he is without sin.I find this and him disgusting and the one of the worse examples of a Christian.

    Roderick claims to want to stick with theology but has never written an exegetical case against “Full Preterism”.It’s always been about personal attacks for him.

    I’m not the least interested in Rodericks personal life and have no joy in expoing him for his hyprocicy.But if he wants to continue in his ignorance then people should be aware of “who” is making this disgusting charge.

    As an airline pilot i have traveled all over the world and the most revealing aspect of different countries is how we treat one another.America has to be one of the worse when it comes to religious intolerance and homophobia.I happen to find the treatment of gay people in our churches akin to the treatment of blacks in the last century.

    I hope your readers can see excatly what it is that Roderick is preaching.Nothing but pure “HATE”.

    The Apostle Paul admonishes us to “speak the truth in love”.

    I leave you and your readers with Pauls words.


  113. I think Roderick addressed MG’s arguments very well. Yesterday MG came out of the closet and identified himself as “Mike Gannon” (not sure if that’s his real name). Now he’s breathing out vengeance against those who hold his cult up to the light of God’s word. I doubt there’s anything we can say that will convince him.

    Of course MG’s practice of taking personal quotes over isues now irrelevant (and outside of their context) shows his bias. He used the “poisoning the wells” argument on my blog several times, and apparently feels that he if he can pull up some dirt on me and Rod and others, he’ll succeed in discrediting us. But the expose will continue. The Hyper-Preterists’ desperation at this point only reveals how cultic its leaders and followers are. Reader beware!


Comments are closed.