The Hyper-preterism Debates on Iron sharpens Iron 

I would love to see a White vs Preston debate.

White should do a debate with Preston, if he's not afraid to look foolish!

I'm still looking for that one video (the holy grail video sts) that thoroughly and fully refutes Preterism.

James should have debated Preston on the resurrection a long time ago

I can't help but sense something very dark behind hyper-preterism. Once you hear what they're saying the only conclusion they seem to be looking for is one that undermines every doctrine held by the church. Not to mention the demeanor and way they speak, even in this very comment section. I pray sound teachers continue to address this dangerous doctrine.

Dr. White, with all due respect, you have been challenged a number of times now to meet me in formal public debate. We can do it on RU-vid, on William Bell and my show Two Guys and a Bible, that would then be posted on YT, or, on your program-- or face to face in a public forum. Bottom line is, it is more than disappointing that someone with your reputation as a defender of the "orthodox faith" should refuse to discuss the subject that has perplexed and troubled the historic church for so long. You are more than aware that I am capable of defending the preterist paradigm, and I have the utmost confidence in your abilities as well. Please do not continue to ignore my invitations. Come, let us reason together! What say ye?

"Myself and Don K. Preston have challenged James White and Gary DeMar to a partner debate and have asked Chris Arnzen to moderate. Clearly White can't separate Peter's statement of "defending" the "hope" in 1 Peter 3:15 from the soteriological / eschatological "salvation" and "inheritance" of 1 Peter 1 or from the eschatological "mockers" and inheritance of the New Creation arriving in 2 Peter 3. His excuse that he "doesn't debate eschatology" is getting very, very, very OLD and is unbiblical -- all the while he takes pot shots at us on his pod cast. His approach is not only unbiblical, it isn't mature Christian conduct or scholarly. White was critical of Don's statements of 1 Corinthians 15 and the "context" and how this has developed into other errors similar to what is taught by JW's. Well, then AGAIN (not shouting) White has no excuse not to debate us. If we are on par with Mormonism and the JWs and White debates those views and he cannot separate 1 Peter 3:15 from the soteriological and eschatological "hope" Peter tells us we need to "defend" and have an "answer" for, then he has no logical or exegetical excuse to continue ducking us. Everyone and their grandmother has been waiting for Gary DeMar to debate Full Preterism and deal with the implications of his Preterist interpretations of the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 and the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 being fulfilled in AD 70. BOTH White and DeMar would accurately represent the "Reformed" view of eschatology - while Frost obviously failed. His view of Christ coming in 2 Thess. 1 and the church experiencing "relief" at the coming of the Holy Spirit or this somehow being connected to the ascension was embarrassing to say the least. His views that the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 1:7 is the ascension is also embarrassing. It is clearly either Christ coming within Jesus' contemporary "this generation" and thus "soon" (DeMar) or the Second Coming event (White). Obviously these two Reformed views form ours and is probably why we aren't hearing from them?!? It's also why the co-authors of WSTTB? have never responded. Kistemaker admitted that if the time statements in Revelation refer to AD 70, then Revelation 20 was fulfilled in AD 70 as well. Obviously they were too busy contradicting themselves, shooting each other in the foot and forming our position rather than refuting us. And when Mathison came out in print AFTER WSTTB? in "FROM AGE TO AGE" teaching the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 was fulfilled in AD 70 and it was discovered that Gentry finally came out in print admitting the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 -- well the gig was up! The Amillennialists clearly could only CONTINUE to assert their Partial Preterist co-author's hermeneutic leads to Full Preterism. This is why I think we see the silence of Mr. White and DeMar or White and his co-elder Jeff Durbin. Don K. Preston is the BEST and most experienced debater in the FPist movement and he obviously should be first up to bat to debate these men. My Sovereign Grace Full Preterist co-authored work in HD and refutation of Mathison and Kistemaker deserve an answer that has never come. Don is willing to have me as his partner. This is a debate that is LONG overdue. I prefer in person debates with Power Point presentations available. Also more time. Surely there is a Reformed church somewhere that is not afraid of hosting this debate? White in his pod cast said he has no problem with the Reformed community looking at and studying our view so why not host the debate at your church James? Your co-elder Jeff Durbin is a Partial Preterist that want's to "engage" with Full Preterism, so I'm sure he can host the debate as well if not participate? I enjoyed my debate with Dr. Michael Brown and will continue to conduct myself with Christian integrity and professionalism. Dr. Brown and myself were trying to organize a second debate on his Zionism, but he backed out after I was critical of his statement that he had "hot hands" in writing a book -- which other Charismatics correctly interpreted as receiving "power" "fire" or a "word from the Lord" etc... Don and I are still waiting to hear from James White or Gary DeMar. Where are they? I have also posted an open letter and challenge to debate White's co-elder Jeff Durbin: fullpreterism.com/open-letter-challenge-to-debate-the-elders-jeff-durbin-luke-pierson-james-white-of-apologia-church-over-their-public-comments-of-full-preterism/

James White here says you have to sound the alarm if a group comes along and says, "No one else has ever seen this doctrine until we came along." In the debate Sam didn't quote one church father who taught White's view of forensic justification PRIOR to Luther. Why? Because at best it would be cherry-picking, because we could probably find a quote from that same church father who blurred sanctification (even with the sacraments) with justification and that is NOT the doctrine of forensic justification. So it's alright for White's "little group" starting in the 1500's but not alright for the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist movement to piece together the AD 70 admissions within the church fathers on Christ coming upon the clouds in AD 70, the elements burning in AD 70, the resurrection happening in AD 70 WITH the other statements by the Reformed church that there is only ONE Second Coming event, ONE passing of the creation / arrival of the new and ONE resurrection of the dead - lol?!? "You can't make this stuff up" and I just proved we didn't :). Oh consistency thou rare jewel - indeed! White should probably stay away from using Roman Catholic "arguments" - especially since he debates them and stick with his statement, "As soon as we become more attached to our traditions than we are the truth, we are in very deep danger." White should stick to "The Scriptures alone" and "Reformed and always reforming." If not, then I guess he should just keep ducking a debate with us since the Partial Preterist and Classic Amillennial views have historically led the Church to Sovereign Grace Full Preterism.

Full Preterism is unstoppable. There are no holes to its argument.

This was a rather disappointing "review". To use Dr. White's words it doesn't seem he understood anything Dr. Preston said clearly. Rather than lead with presuppositions, we would hope men who claim to know and teach the Bible would do the necessary study, as Dr. Preston does to arrive at doctrine.

Interesting commentary, James. I can't help but note the spin, though. "You can start seeing just how many cardinal, central aspects of the faith are being sacrificed to just maintain this one framework system." It doesn't surprise me to hear it framed that way. How about: how many cardinal, central aspects of the faith are enshrined so that challenging them is seen as a terrible act of "sacrificing them". Central aspects such as future state bodily resurrection and bodily Second Coming, which are not proven by scripture. I would really love to see a joint study - not a debate - done by you and Don Preston, or better you and David Curtis because Don is not Calvinist. If we believe that iron sharpens iron, as we should, there is nothing at risk. If the confessional view is completely solid, there is nothing at risk. And potentially much to gain. All you guys have my great respect - not as if you need it, but I think I and many others would benefit from the venture. I would call on you to live up to your stance regarding the church fathers, that they were blessed but still had blind spots and really serious error. What makes us think the men of the Reformation were not similarly affected? (I've heard that recognition in your monologues.) What makes the confessions perfectly unassailable, as if we have arrived in every understanding? All rhetorical questions, of course. It is not that Full Preterists (what you all call derogatorally Hyper-preterists, as if there's an orthodox Preterism) have convinced themselves. It is rather that when a spiritual form is seen in the text, it is convincing and can't be unseen unless a flaw is discovered. The form is there. The question is what shall we do with it? Orthodoxy says reject it, it's too alien.

Sam has not responded to Don's appeals to the lexical evidence on imminence which is the Reformed Partial Preterist challenge to Sam as well (even Sam's own publisher Gary DeMar). Two of my questions were never read by Chris which addressed the following: FIRST, if "near" and "will not delay" of God's judgment in Ezekiel 7 and 12 was not "far off" but rather fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophets contemporaries how does "near" and "will not be delayed" in Hebrews 10:37 or 1 Peter 4:5-7 get changed to thousands of years? 2). SECOND QUESTION on Philippians 3:10--4:5. My question exposed the following points: a). Is it "Reformed" to believe the resurrection of Philippians 3:10-21 is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled progressively, spiritually, corporately and a covenantal resurrection between AD 30 - AD 70? The answer is YES. b). Is it "Reformed" to believe the "near" coming/parousia of Christ in Philippians 4:5 is the Second Coming event which fulfills the resurrection event of Philippians 3:21? Is it Reformed to believe that Paul truly believed and taught under inspiration that the Second Coming would occur within the lifetimes of his contemporaries? The answer is YES. c). Is it "Reformed" to believe the "near" coming/parousia of Christ in Philippians 4:5 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70? Is it "Reformed" to believe if you don't believe the imminent time texts in the NT refer to AD 70 you are coming close to denying the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture itself (Gary DeMar)? The answer is YES. d). THEREFORE, WHY can't it be a "Reformed" view to believe the progressive, spiritual, corporate and covenantal resurrection of Philippians 3:10-21 was fulfilled between AD 30 - AD 70 at the "near" Second Coming/Parousia of Christ in AD 70 and thus uphold and defend the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture and harmonize these "Reformed" views? Obviously there is no logical, exegetical or historical reason it can't be - and this is why I believe the question was avoided --- even within this thread. 3). I have provided evidence that Sam bore false witness on what "everyone [allegedly] knows" in the Reformed community about what the NT teaches concerning the alleged "end of world history" in Matthew 24:35-36; 2 Peter 3; Romans 8:18-23YLT; Daniel 12:2-3; Revelation 21-22; etc... Sam thinks him bearing false witness is funny. I guess the dancing bear routine, immature emojis and bearing false witness "responses" of Sam is the best "Iron Sharpens Iron" has to offer in trying to stop the spread of Sovereign Grace Full Preterism within its churches. This is why SGFPism will continue to grow and there isn't a thing the Reformed community can do about it. There are reasons why Reformed writers and debaters such as DeMar and White / DeMar and Waldron / White and Wilson / Waldron and Wilson continue to duck debating us. Or why Kenneth Gentry continues ducking us. Don and myself continue the partner challenge to debate these men but no response thus far. If the best they have to offer is a "House Divided" "WSTTB?" "response" or throw out the NEW views (Mt. 24-25; Rev. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1 - is the inauguration ascension coming/going) of Sam the dancing bear Frost -- we are in GREAT shape!

My former co-author usually responds to me with childish "ROLF" or emojis. But under Chris Arnzen's thread of the debate on facebook Sam pasted one of his articles where Sam Frost writes, “Thus, it does not matter whether a scholar in the past takes 2 Peter 3 as “fulfilled”, but not Romans 8.19-ff. It does not matter whether one popular teacher takes virtually all of Matthew 24 as fulfilled, but does not take I Thessalonians 4, or I Corinthians 15 as unfulfilled.” My response: Let’s stick with those texts Sam cites. Of course in “House Divided...” we were responding to Doug Wilson (one of seven Reformed authors) who does take 2 Peter 3 as fulfilled in AD 70 and I documented how a combination of John Lightfoot and Gary DeMar takes Romans 8:18-23YLT from the Reformed Futurist Creedal position. I also cited Sam’s Partial Preterist friend Mike Bull who follows Partial Preterist Milton Terry (a major source of authority for virtually all Reformed Partial Preterists) in seeing the Parousia of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 as fulfilled in AD 70. Oh and Acts 1:11 in AD 70 as well 😉 And of course it’s not just “virtually all of Matthew 24”, but Mathison and DeMar take the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 as fulfilled in AD 70 which Gentry and others try and assure their Futurist readers is where Jesus in fact does teach the Church the doctrine of His Second Coming event. Yeah, nothing to see here people - keep walking. And as Sam knows full well that Jordan, DeMar, Gentry etc... taking the resurrection of the just and unjust (Daniel 12:2) as spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 is simply icing on the cake. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2 IS the resurrection of John 5-6; Revelation 20; 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. Again, nothing to see here people keep walking. Of course Sam dismisses these as “minor differences” - lol. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. When we combine the above admissions from Reformed eschatology with the other side which concedes the NT only teaches ONE eschatological hope and NOT TWO parousias, TWO de-creations, TWO re-creations, TWO judgments and resurrections for the living and the dead - we have nowhere else to go except Sovereign Grace Full Preterism. When you have 99% of the so-called end of world history texts ending up in the AD 70 basket - it’s game over. Good try though Sam. This is why Sam (as a Jonah) mocks the imminent time texts Partial and Full Preterists appeal to and why he has come up with NEW views that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 1:7 is somehow the ascension inauguration event and not the Second Coming event (per the WCF). Or how 2 Thess. 1 is not a Second Coming passage etc... Clearly Sam failed to represent the full body of Reformed eschatology and some of his NEW views left everyone scratching their heads. This is why myself and Don Preston are calling out DeMar and White or DeMar and Waldron or Wilson and Waldron or Wilson and White etc... But they retreat into their ivory towers and become like Baghdad Bob - nothing to see here people, move along. Or they hide behind the dancing bear routine of Sam Frost and hope giving him the public attention (that he enjoys so much) as a self proclaimed “scholar” and “former full preterist” will be enough so that they won’t be held accountable and have to debate. Just that simple folks. No need to complicate it.

The NT writers thought they were living in the last hour of the last days of the ends of the ages, and they were inspired. The Book of Hebrews leaves no doubt, they “saw the day approaching”. What day? The day when the coming one would “shake the heavens”, (OC Israel), removing that which could be shaken and establishing the kingdom that can not be shaken. When? “In a very little while” or before “this generation passes away”. Please don't dismiss Full Preterism without carefully seeking God. I can accept the Patristic Fathers being mistaken but not Jesus and the Apostoles.

Only the wholesome and life-giving doctrines of Preterist-Futurism can prevent one from falling into the HyperPreterist quicksands. It’s clear that the “coming” in Matthew 24 was a metaphorical coming only, and in NO SENSE a personal coming. If it was personal, then you are face to face with Docetism, which is a different heresy altogether. Also, Christ said all those things would be fulfilled.. but that doesn’t mean “filled full.” Matthew 25 does not include “all those things,” but was spoken afterwards.

You sound like a catholic responding to the protestant reformation. There is no such thing as a Hyper-preterism. Preterism in its true form is fulfilled eschatology everything else is futurism.

James White is afraid to debate Don K Preston

If he doesn't understand eschatology because he hasn't studied it - how is going to understand Preston?

Is there any videos on the dating of the Book of Revelation?

James. So that would make your paradigm say that all those who died in faith since a.d. 70 are also not yet in the eternal state, since they haven't yet received a resurrected body? If not, what is it that they who have died in faith have now, since they have been in His presence for nearly 2000 years of waiting without a body? It was great to hear , you found the debate interesting. It would be great if you and Don could get together in a forum to further discuss these things.

Both Sam Frost and Don Preston made very serious errors in this debate. I agree that things got bogged down at times and that it didn't provide the background necessary to really follow it all. You are right, however Dr. White, to avoid giving those people associated with Don Preston any publicity by using your name as a means to further their heretical positions on various doctrines, and you are right to continue calling them out on them. Bravo.

It's no mistake that the Holy Spirit separated the defeat of the three enemies of Christ, harlot, beast, and false prophet from the defeat of Satan by one thousand years (symbolic). Clearly this is a definite time period, or why use this imagery at all? It is hard to miss. Most make Revelation 20 about the reign of Christ for a thousand years (v. 4) but a careful reading will prove that this is incorrect. It is actually the thousand year reign of martyred souls, but even this is not the main event of the chapter. The main narrative is the final defeat of Satan. The separation for this complete and large time period is obvious, and the final defeat of Satan is sudden and brutal and chronologically at the Last Day (John 8:28-29; John 11:23-24). Proof of the Last Day as still a future date is of course the defeat of Satan, he is still with us, and the simple fact that humans are still dying. Jesus stated (1 Corinthians 15:26) that the last item on the agenda is the destruction of death, which is confirmed in the great white throne judgement, the "Last Day" (Revelation 20:13-14). This remains the main problem for full Preterists, the vain attempt in trying to explain away this event which is so very obvious. Humans are still dying, thus the Last Day remains a future event.

Is Matthew 10:23 about 70 AD, or is it about Jesus coming as the King to Israel? The answer is found below in Zech. 9:9. Did Jesus "cometh" as the King of Israel riding on a donkey during the week He was crucified? If Matthew 10:23 is about 70 AD, Peter ignored the commandment given by Jesus in Matthew 10:5-7, when Peter went to the house of Cornelius. It did not take the disciples forty years to take the Gospel to Israel. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period of the Gospel going "first" to Israel is found in Matt. 10:5-23, and Acts chapter 2, and Acts 10:36-38, and Galatians 1:14-18. Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. The Old Covenant age died at Calvary when God ripped the temple veil in half from the top to the bottom at the moment His Son died at Calvary. There is no record in the NT of any person coming to salvation outside of the New Covenant between Calvary and 70 AD. Hebrews 7:12 proves there was a change in the law before 70 AD. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant Church of Mount Zion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24. This passage was written in the present tense before 70 AD. If the Hyper-Preterists were correct the Old Covenant age would come back into existence if a temple were rebuilt, and animal sacrifices are renewed. Any basic book on Astronomy proves we are not now living in the "eternal" New Heavens and New Earth, because the sun only has a limited amount of nuclear fuel. We now understand the nuclear reaction inside the core of the sun, because of the testing of thermonuclear weapons.

Christ said he will give us a new body

Hyper-preterist? Is that a Preterist who drank too much coffee? Either you're a Futurist or you're a Preterist. Let's stop the word games Mr. White.

Debate Don K Preston , James. I'd love to see that!

During the day of the Lord which happens during the last half of Daniel's 70th week, the Bible says, "The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image...The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and EVERY living thing in the sea died...The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood...The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him...The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores...The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the NATIONS collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 EVERY island fled away, and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds, fell on people." None of this happened in the first century, so NO, the Great Tribulation has NOT begun. You are just making everything a metaphor to fit your pre-conceived theological position.

When are you going to debate Don he’s called you out for almost a year. Your pulling a William Lane Craig. Lol

The Full Preterist has read a book, listened to a radio broadcast, heard a sermon, watched a TV evangelist and has made up his mind in spite of what scripture says. Revelation 20 says, "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a THOUSAND YEARS; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the THOUSAND YEARS were finished." I guess the Holy Spirit made a mistake when He told John to write about the THOUSAND YEARS. He really meant the forty years. Satan who the Bible calls the "god of this world, and a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour" has not been bound so as to NOT deceive the nations...There has not been a time in human history where the nations of the world were not deceived. The nations of the worlds have always worshipped false gods from Jupiter and Zeus to Allah and any one of the three hundred million Hindu gods. Murder, rape, and crimes of all kinds have been the lot of this world down through history. Satan has not yet been bound, but one day: Isaiah 11 speaking of Jesus says, He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. 6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. 10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. This time has not yet come, but one day will.

Preterism was formalized and promoted by the exact same people who formalized and promoted futurism -- Jewish Jesuit opponents to the Protestant movement. Both eschatologies were Counter-Reformation schemes by the Catholic Church. The Jesuit priest Alcazar was the brains behind preterism. Preterism was a favorite view among such humanists and "higher critics" as the German Rationalists, Grotius, Locke, and others. Full preterism is the same Jesuit scheme on steroids. Interestingly, both futurism and preterism started really gaining traction around the same time, about 150 years ago. Prior to that, historicism was the standard eschatological view among non-Catholic, non-humanist Bible scholars, and was the common ground of the Protestant movement which ended the papal system's 1260-year temporal reign. On a historical basis alone, both preterism and futurism have little to nothing to show in terms of good fruits.

I never understood why people insist Jesus has a physical body in heaven. It seems silly to me. Does Jesus have sweat glands? does he need deodorant? Does he have to blow his nose? Is he on a literal throne next to God the father and is like,” hey dad I’ll be right back I need a potty break.”? What is sown mortal is raised immortal. Jesus existed as the Word in the beginning before he took on a fleshly body. Why would he ascend back to his father to be glorified again with the glory he had before the creation of the world and still have an earthly body? Just because a creed says so? No thanks I’ll happily loose this body 😅

Within Chris announcing Sam's bio he mentions our book...and Sam tries to get recognition by being one of my co-authors of "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology..." -- and yet my chapter makes it abundantly CLEAR that when we combine the scholarship of Evangelical and Reformed Partial Preterist scholarship there is a 99% consensus on NT de-creation or "end of the world" texts as being fulfilled in AD 70 and not the end of world history. So how can I sit by and not call out Sam as being dishonest and manipulative in saying "everyone knows what heaven and earth mean" etc... in his appeals to the NT teaching there is an end to world history?!? Here is some of what I wrote: G.K. Beale’s research indicates, “…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.” (G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70. Reformed theologian John Brown in identifying the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 writes: “But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.” (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170). Commentators are correct to identify the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 5:18) as the “heaven and earth” of (Matthew 24:35), but the context of both point us to the old covenant system and not the planet earth. According to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17-18 if heaven and earth have not passed away, then we are currently under all of the “jots and tittles” of the old covenant law. And now specifically of the passing of heaven and earth here in our text, Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35: “The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he principal reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. (Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157). Jesus nor the NT writers ever predicted the end of the planet earth as is simply assumed by so many here in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and elsewhere in the NT. When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of virtually every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17-18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17-18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men-either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965-68), 9:134-135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew - 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford UniversityPress, 1987), 617-618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363-365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68-74, 141-154, 191-192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269-279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145-169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157-158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345-346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84-86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002). These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when full preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed and Evangelical eschatology, anti-preterists unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views. The full preterist combines the two competing “orthodox” views on the coming of the Lord and de-creation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 to form a consistently exegetical and historical position: CLASSIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW: The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE second coming event and the consummation is further supported by the de-creation or end of world history spoken of here (Mt. 24:3, 29-35). PARTIAL PRETERIST VIEW: But the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 happened spiritually at the end of the Old Covenant age (v. 3) and the de-creation of verses 29 and 35 are also descriptive of the passing of the Old Covenant creation/age and establishing the new by AD 70. FULL PRETERIST VIEW (Synthesis of the above Reformed views or “Reformed and always reforming”): Therefore, the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE second coming event (as is the de-creation spoken of in verses 3, 29, 35) whereby Christ came spiritually to bring an end to the Old Covenant age/creation (not to end world history or dissolve planet earth) in the events of AD 66 - AD 70 and establish the new. It was also dishonest for Sam to say "everyone knows what "day and hour' (Mt. 24:36)..." in trying to manipulate everyone that it is referring to the end of world history when Reformed theologians such as John Lightfoot and John Gill took this as being fulfilled in AD 70 AND Sam's own publisher Gary DeMar does as well. Were these accurate comments? Surely Sam is not ignorant of what these men teach on these texts? If it's not ignorance -- then what is it? James White in his pod cast discussing this debate claims he has no issues with the Reformed community studying Full Preterism. Excellent. Send me a private message on Facebook and I'll send you an electronic version of HD for free. Or for a paperback go to Amazon or my site (fullpreterism.com) and we will get you a copy to study. Remember our book was a response to 7 Reformed theologians who thought they could refute Full Preterism and White often appeals to their book. Since White says he is open for you to study Full Preterism, you should read our response to Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, Douglas Wilson, Simon Kistemaker, Robert Strimple, etc...

I know of no full preterist, such as myself, who calls their self a "hyper-preterist.!" That is a slang term coined by non-full-preterists. We are full-preterists or fulfilled covenant preterists. The only, I actually say the main point of difference, between a partial preterist and a full preterist is the final so-called return of Christ. The partial preterist affirms the coming in vengeance of Christ in 70AD, and then still waits on a yet still future coming of Christ at an undetermined time. The full preterist recognizes the separate descriptions of the coming of the Lord in scripture as separate re-tellings of the very same singular event. Such as MT 24, 1THESS 3, and 2Pet 3 as describing the same event.

And of course John Gill (this is for Waldron and White) following John Lightfoot, did NOT "know" that "the day and hour" (Mt. 24:36) was the end of world history event (per Frost's comments that "everyone knows...") but rather: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man...the coming of the son of man, to take vengeance on the Jews, and of their destruction; for the words manifestly regard the date of the several things going before, which only can be applied to that catastrophe, and dreadful desolation: now, though the destruction itself was spoken of by Moses and the prophets, was foretold by Christ, and the believing Jews had some discerning of its near approach; see ( Hebrews 10:25 ) yet the exact and precise time was not known: it might have been: calculated to a year by Daniel's weeks, but not to the day and hour; and therefore our Lord does not say of the year, but of the day and hour no man knows;..." Major Premise: The "day and hour" (Mt. 24:36) and resurrection "hour of the end" (Daniel 12:1-7 OG LXX) are the same event and there is only ONE end of the age resurrection event (Reformed Eschatology - ex. Sam Waldron & James White) Minor Premise: But the "day and hour" (Mt. 24:36) and resurrection "hour of the end" (Daniel 12:1-7 OG LXX) were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 to close the Old Covenant age (Gary DeMar and other Reformed theologians) Conclusion: The "day and hour" (Mt. 24:36) and resurrection "hour of the end" (Daniel 12:1-7 OG LXX) are the same resurrection and consummative event and were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. Since there is only ONE end of the age resurrection event, this "day and hour" resurrection was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 to close the Old Covenant age and not end world history (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism). Don K. PrestonMike Bennett Mike Green Jeff McCormack Ken Davies Not complicated.

Here is why Don and myself would like to debate James White and Gary DeMar over their public comments of Full Preterism and or their comments of the Frost / Preston debate. 1). James White: Took issue with Don's "framework" and "contextual" approach to 1 Corinthians 15. Let's discuss this a bit: a). Paul in Acts is CLEAR that he taught no other things except that which can be found in the law and prophets (that is Paul's "framework"). Paul's OT sources for the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 IS Hosea 13 and Isaiah 25. BASIC hermeneutics tells us that when a NT author cites an OT text, we HAVE to understand the context of that OT passage (see Richard Hays, Beale, Holland, etc...). b). Don pointed out the immediate context of Paul stating clearly that not all of his contemporaries would die before they would witness the Parousia of Christ as is what Jesus taught in Matthew 16:27-28. Paul clearly expected the eschatological goal and end of the age to take place in the first century (1 Cor. 10:11). Was Paul mistaken Mr. White? Many of your Muslim or Liberal opponents have claimed the NT cannot be trusted since it posits the Second Coming to take place in the first century. Why not debate US on that topic - especially since we prove since Jesus did return when the NT teaches the Scriptures are inspired and infallible? c). We refuted Robert Strimple in HD on his claims that a physically dead person cannot experience anastasis / resurrection by simply quoting himself concerning his comments of Revelation 20:4. He even admits that today when one dies he experiences a non-physical resurrection into God's presence. The "already and not yet" "hour" and anastasis of Daniel 12 (OG LXX) which is developed by Jesus in John 4-5 is clearly referring to a spiritual resurrection of both the living and dead. And of course Mr. DeMar, Jordan and Gentry teach us that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was progressive, corporate, covenantal (OC - NC AD 30 - AD 70) and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70. Jordan teaching that Daniel's soul was raised spiritually out of Hades into God's presence. Again, a non-physical resurrection/anastasis. And if the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was a spiritual and progressive resurrection between AD 30 - AD 70, and James White and his father likes the WUESTNT, perhaps we can discuss his translation of "the death beING destroyed" in 1 Corinthians 15? Dr. White, we are not denying that the immediate context involves those that had physically died -- we are simply pointing out that the spiritual death that came through Adam still held those who died captive and away from God's presence as well. The resurrection deniers were denying a resurrection (out of Hades) for the OT dead and a future resurrection for the living Jews while maintaining a resurrection for those "in Christ" dead or alive. The Gentiles (Paul's party) were being arrogant and thinking that they had replaced Israel and that apart from them they had resurrection (cf. a similar situation to Paul's correction or theology in Romans 11 and Hebrews 11:39-40 [if Paul wrote Hebrews). 2). Gary DeMar: Stated he didn't believe 2 Thess. 1 was a Second Coming text. White would obviously disagree with that as would Don and myself. And I think we would ALL disagree with Frost's odd ascension / Holy Spirit coming view of the text - lol. Questions for White and DeMar: 1. Is the coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27 Matthew 24-25 and throughout the book of Revelation the Second Coming event or fulfilled in AD 70? Does the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation end the millennium of and bring about the resurrection and judgment of Revelation 20:5-15? 2. Is the coming of Christ (either Second Coming or fulfilled in AD 70) in the above texts the SAME coming of Christ or Parousia ushering in the resurrection mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4-5; 1 Corinthians 15; Philippians 3:21--4:5? White and Gary will be able to accurately defend the FULL and more COMPLETE views of Reformed eschatology and answer questions and help me out of my heresy that I have been in for over 30 years now. And since White's co-elder Jeff Durbin claims they are "united" and "consistent" in their views -- I want to see them actually defend that statement and be cross-examined. If not, then they are just empty words. James says in this video that there should have been more time to set up the context of each system. James, let's do this your way and at the same time allow the Reformed Partial Preterist view to engage as well. This is more productive, gracious and scholarly approach to this topic rather than taking "drive-by" pot shots at Full Preterism. What do you say? Don is the best and most experienced FP debater and it would be nice if the Reformed community would stop using our book "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology" as Sam the "former FP" book --- and actually let one of the REAL Sovereign Grace Full Preterists to engage in public debate the ACTUAL content of the book. I know, novel concept. I am willing and ready and you have a copy of our book.

PRETERISTS, HISTORISTS are taking away from the worst horror the world will see (Matthew 24:21), when the earth shakes to and fro like a drunkard (Isaiah 24:20), as the pit is opened (Revelation 9:2) and the locusts are released (Joel 2:25). John received the book of Revelation. Yet, he was told that he would be coming back at the end. Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy AGAIN before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. That revelation (given within the past 2 decades):

We need your expertise to destroy Full Preterism James!

Gnosticist? gnostic. :)

Preston has got some things wrong but full pret, pre mil is correct.

7:00 correct. And that's not a bad thing. God loves people and will be making them saving them forever. And of his increase...

Preston thinks that Jesus took off His "outer garments" before entering the MHP. It only took him 40 years to enter the Most Holy Place. Go figure. Ridiculous!

Still waiting for an ad free version to hear. Fp has some questions, but at least historicism doesn't try to divide the olivet discourse by thousands of years 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Wow. What more is there to be debated? James White is giving too much credit to a rank heretic.

James White, One more thing - if you do not know all of Don Preston's REDEFINITIONS of all major branches, doctrines, and terms in Christianity, he will con you (or anyone) with SOUNDING LIKE a Christian. He uses all the same words and terms that a Christian uses - but like any other cult - he has very special definitions that prop up a special framework (the Max King "framework" in Don Preston's case.) Don will NOT readily give away those redefinitions! Don Preston and William Bell have spent the last 30 years working on these special definitions - and learning all the defenses to anybody who challenges them on their false Christ and false gospel. Both Don Preston and William Bell are VERY SLICK at what they do! They know all the tricks to give a defense of the Max King framework - without even calling it "the Max King framework - although Max King did actually coin the term "Covenant Eschatology." And, these two main false teachers in this cult (Don Preston and William Bell) have managed to get other Stone Campbell church of Christ ministers on board with them - and even some non-Stone Campbell church of Christ people who are now teaching in this cult out from Max King (like Mike Sullivan, Ward Fenley, Michael Miano, Alan Bondar, Jeff Vaughn, and others.) By the way, Max King was a very charismatic Stone Campbell church of Christ minister - and both William Bell and Don Preston - as Stone Campbell church of Christ ministers - followed after Max King. William Bell joined Max King in the 1980's as a direct disciple of Max King, and Don Preston joined rank with Max King and William Bell in the early 1990's as a direct disciple of Max King (although Don denies that he is a direct disciple of Max King.) They were all trying to bring "new light" to the Stone Campbell church of Christ "restoration movement." And, both Don and William STILL CLAIM TO BE Stone Campbell church of Christ ministers - who are trying to reform and "further restore" the Stone Campbell church of Christ movement into a Full Preterist movement.

Full Preterism is of the devil.

lol Amen, Dr. White. Hyper preterism is absurdly ridiculous.