In Bed with Premillennialists

Those who know me know I do not have many kind things to say about Dispensationalism. I believe most of its adherents advocate a view that makes Christ's sacrifice vain (e.g., a new temple during Christ's “millennial reign” (cf. Ezekiel 40ff)). But I must admit I find Partial Preterism to be just as distasteful, and I believe its adherents are cowards.

Partial Preterists wish to remain in bed with the other Futurist brands, which is why they reject Full Preterism. After all, Full Preterists are not Christians, according to Partial Preterist Sam Frost, and in a desperate attempt to still be “Christians,” Partial Preterists maintain Futurist doctrines, such as a future, bodily return of Christ, and a future, bodily resurrection of the dead. Interestingly, the Dispensationalists that believe the terms of the old covenant will be reinstated at some future return of Christ on Earth are “Christians,” according to Sam, but Full Preterists are not? I wonder what the bigger heresy is?

Partial, or Orthodox Preterists, as they like to be called (makes them feel like they're in pull-ups), have no problem tossing around the “heretic” label among Full Preterists. Truth be told, I see very few of us actually arguing with this label. I mean, if orthodoxy is determined by various creeds, and those creeds maintain Futurist propositions, then naturally the Full Preterist paradigm is “heretical,” or against orthodoxy. Of course, I find no problem with this. What I do have a problem with are the cowards like Sam Frost telling us we're not Christians! Reality check: I am a Christ follower, which makes me a “Christian.” This fact is apparently above Sam Frost's comprehension (a possible result of not yet having moved up from pull-ups into tighty-whities).

I have learned that the Partial Preterists just want to feel warm and fuzzy, and accepted in scholarly circles. While I certainly like to feel loved, I don't do so at the expense of truth. They, however, do. Interesting, isn't it, that those of us actually being honest with the text aren't “Christians,” but those who lie about the actual implications of their views (such as Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon) are? I find something off about that. Oh, right! It's “off” because it isn't logical.

Partial Preterists follow similar hermeneutics as Full Preterists. They recognize that “soon” means “soon,” and “near” means “near.” Well, until it doesn't fit their presuppositions, of course (it's at this point in which they play word games with the Greek language). Partial Preterists also recognize the relevance of Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70. Moreover, they identify her as the harlot of Revelation (Revelation 11:8; 17-19). For the most part, Full and Partial Preterists are in agreement about the fulfillment of Revelation up to this point, with some Partial Preterists going a little further.

I'd like to point out an inconsistency now. If Mystery Babylon (Jerusalem) was destroyed in A.D. 70 (which it was), and the marriage supper of the Lamb was to occur after this (Revelation 19:2,7; cf. Matthew 22:1-14), then Revelation 21-22 must also be fulfilled (cf. Revelation 21:2ff). Naturally, Revelation 20 would have found its fulfillment as well. Such is the problem with adding random gaps in the text to accommodate presuppositions (which is exactly what Partial Preterists lecture Premillennialists for doing to Daniel 9:24-27). Some Partial Preterists acknowledge this. Makes one wonder just what makes them “partial.”

In all honesty, Partial Preterists are just Full Preterists in disguise. They know we're right about the time of fulfillment (though they disagree on some points in regards to the manner of fulfillment), but they can't bring themselves to admit it, and seek some way to make certain things yet future to us. Two people who are little short of being Full Preterists are Sam Frost (ex-Full Preterist) and Kenneth Gentry. Recall what I just said about the latter chapters of Revelation while you read this article by Sam Frost: http://thereignofchrist.com/revelation-21-22/

In this article, he is addressing Revelation 21 and 22. Gentry acknowledges the covenantal nature of these two chapters (a Full Preterist position). The argument becomes a matter of sequence at this point, as Frost and Gentry argue. Sam writes, “...it seems as if the material of Revelation 21-22 comes after the events of 20:11-15. However, as it can be shown, this is not the case. But, for this, let me first propose the order of the visions.” He continues:

“Revelation 20.1-11 refers to the time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in the Jewish Wars (66-73, 135 AD, roughly). What some may point out here [is] that it appears that satan is thrown into the 'lake of fire' at the same time he destroys the 'camp of the saints.' However, the text does not necessarily say this. Many commentators have seen this problem because 19.20 states that the 'beast and false prophet' were thrown in the lake of fire, when, in fact, the 'lake of fire' judgment is the final judgment. Again, on appearance, one may (and many have) take the events of Revelation 19 to be followed by the events of Revelation 20, leading up to the consummation in 21-22. However, many others understand that John's visions do not necessarily work in such a nice and neat chronological order, or even a nice and neat sequential order.”

I agree with Sam Frost that Revelation 20:1-11 regard the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the text is quite clear that the “thousand years” take place at this time, just as the great white throne judgment (20:11ff). Simply put, Revelation 20 is simply stating what John had already written in previous chapters. Revelation 20:1-11 likely spans from Christ's ministry to A.D. 70. In fact, the whole chapter does. Then, in Revelation 21 we see the marriage of the Lamb and his bride (new Jerusalem) take place (cf. Revelation 19:7). These chapters are clearly overlapping each other. (I think Sam and I both wish to slap the person that created the chapter breaks in the canon, as it creates unnecessary divisions in the text which distort the way things are meant to be read.)

Jesus stated that “Satan,” the “strong man,” was already bound at the time of his ministry (Matthew 12:24-30; cf. Revelation 20:1-3). When “Satan” is released (Revelation 20:7), the tribulation John wrote of in previous chapters begins. So, again, we can see that John is simply repeating that which he has already written. After this, the judgment. Nothing about this leaves room for thousands of years preceding a bodily return of Christ.

Like I've stated, Partial Preterists are Full Preterists in disguise, just too scared to be labeled “heretics,” so they do what they can to make the text offer future fulfillment. But as we can see, much of what people like Ken Gentry, Sam Frost, and Gary DeMar say and/or publish can be placed right alongside the works of “heretics” such as Don Preston, Larry Siegle, and others.

If anyone has read Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, they know that it is a Full Preterist book in almost every way. The implications of his views, such as the fulfillment of Revelation 21:1, should leave no one guessing as to what eschatological label he wears. Yet, he denies being a Full Preterist. This doesn't change the fact that many Full Preterists, myself included, give him credit for leading others to Full Preterism. Even Partial Preterist websites label him a “heretic” and do not provide his material for others to view.

Anyway, this is mostly just a rant, but I couldn't help but get this off my chest after having read Sam Frost's latest article on Revelation 21-22. It is just further proof of the dishonesty and cowardice of the “Orthodox Preterists” as they do what they can to make sure their Premillennial girlfriends don't leave them for another man.

Hope you enjoyed.

Jason Watt