Everyone remembers the episode in Luke 11: 39-44, where our Lord denounced the Pharisees

for their legalism, hypocrisy, and observance of the mere externals of religion. The lawyers sat
there for awhile, listening to Christ’s criticisms as patiently as they could; until one of
them determined to speak up. Said he: “Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also“ (Luke
11: 45). But in response to his words, our Lord, instead of letting up, turned his verbal artillery
upon the lawyers, including them in the number of those Israelites – mere descendants of
Abraham, but not his children – who were culpable for their rejection of His Divine ministry to
the nation.
I was asked not long ago, why I don’t make a sharper distinction between heretical “Full”
Preterism and orthodox “partial” Preterism. After all, said my critic, this distinction needs to be
pressed, so people do not think that Partial Preterism is in the same boat as Full or Hyper-
Preterism. This is because one is a heresy, whereas the other is a valid evangelical option. So
he reasoned. Well, in all fairness, I do try to make a distinction between what I conceive to be
heresy and orthodoxy. However, I suppose the reader was right in that I don’t make an especial
point of distinguishing between full and partial preterism in my articles, podcasts, and videos.
The reason is, quite simply, because I am not sure where that distinction can be drawn.
Although I appreciate the work of men like Kenneth Gentry, Keith Mathison, and others,
who have taken Hyper-Preterism to task in the materials they have put forth, I believe their
movement is largely responsible for the proliferation and growth of Hyper-Preterism. Partial
Preterists have often reminded me of an inveterate spender who, because of his prodigal
lifestyle, must constantly dodge his creditors to avoid going to court. Though the debt
keeps mounting higher and higher, the prodigal thinks that by gaining a little more time, the
problem will just go away, and that the creditors will lose interest in him. Well, as the sequel
always pans out, the problem never goes away, and the sheriff eventually shows up to serve
the dreaded (albeit not unexpected) notice to appear in court.
By spending too much of their “credit” on a past fulfillment scheme, Partial Preterists have
racked up a mountain of debt which places them virtually in the same boat as that spendthrift
who has managed through his spendings to lose home, property, and car. They see Hyper-
Preterism increasing on a daily level, and recognize that it is becoming a problem. Some of
them even acknowledge that Hyper-Preterists attribute their writings to leading them down the
road to heresy. But in most cases, they either ignore the problem, or handle it with a superficial
article or podcast, thinking that the next time they show up at their posts, Hyper-Preterism will
somehow have magically vanished from the scene. And guess what? It never does.
So I ask my reader: why should I make a distinction that these folks fail to make themselves?
It is a fact that Partial Preterists have never come to a consensus on where to draw the line
between orthodox and heretical Preterism. This needs to be ironed out. In my opinion, the best
criterion would be the timing of the resurrection. If someone says a resurrection occurred in
A.D. 70, then they are clearly going beyond orthodox barriers. But then the Partial Preterists
can’t hold this position, for Gary DeMar, James Jordan, Ken Gentry, and others maintain
that people were resurrected in A.D. 70 – without resurrection bodies. Of course, Mike
Bull has a slightly different take, asserting that the 12 apostles (and by implication, the
first century Christians) were all physically resurrected in A.D. 70, and whisked away to heaven
– even in the face of unanimous patristic testimony that the apostle John lived to a ripe old age,
dying a natural death during the reign of Trajan (see here). But does such testimony have any
weight? Nope. According to this guy, patristic writings are all wrong, while only one or
two Preterists are right. That is NOT historic Christianity, people.
 In respect to some (former?) friends, I used to try to make a distinction between Partial and
Full Preterism. Because we were fighting the same battle against the heresy of Hyper-
Preterism, I thought that it was only fair to point out the fundamental difference between the
two paradigms. But after the recent debacle – or shall I say, fallout – that occurred between
historical Christians and the Dr. Talbot-led faction of anti-Hyper-Preterism, I have had to
question whether we are really fighting the same battle. It is not orthodox to claim that the
resurrection of believers as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, was fulfilled in A.D. 70. It is not
orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation (all exept the last two chapters) was fulfilled in the
Jewish War of A.D. 67-70. It is not orthodox to assert that we are in the age to come (see the
Nicene Creed).
While I don’t have any major problem with someone claiming that Matthew 24 was fulfilled
in A.D. 70 (although I think this is a grave error, and inconsistent with Scriptural and historical
data), it is plain to me, at this point, that Partial Preterism is far more than just saying that the
Olivet Discourse (barring Matthew 25) was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. It is a
complete shifting of orthodox theological parameters, which jeopardizes the entire system of
Christian doctrine. This is why Hyper-Preterism is growing. What Partial Preterists need to
do is, not buy more time to ward off the enemy, but return to acknowledged Christian principles
of interpretation. It is not important to me whether someone is a Pre-Millennialist or A-
Millennialist. One can even be a Post-Millennialist, and maintain the distinctives of historic
Christianity. But Partial Preterism, at least in its modern acedemic manifestations, has taken it
too far. It is for that reason, that whenever I write or speak against Hyper-Preterism, I almost
always end up reproaching Partial Preterists. How can I avoid it?