"Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D."

(On Destruction of Death in AD70)
"The end of the age meant the end of the reign of the Death and the Sin and life in the fullness of Son eternally. This last statement is a virtual powder keg for preterism in terms of its implications. "

"This was a reorganization of the cosmos. The whole world was changed. What once reigned over all the world (the Sin and the Death of Adam) was now replaced with a new reign, a new kingdom: the Grace and Righteousness. As preterists we must assert that our present day existence in the world is not one which is ruled by the Death and the Sin. Rather, our own time since the time of Christ's  parousia, is ruled by the Grace and Righteousness."

Now, this raises a question concerning Man, all men, in the age to come. Let me assert quite plainly: all men are under the rule of the Grace and Righteousness. No man is under the rule of the Death and the Sin.  How can anyone who is a preterist claim that any man is under the reign of "the Death" when clearly "the Death" has been defeated and "swallowed up in victory" as Rev 20.14,15 clearly illustrates? And, if "the Death" has been defeated entirely for all men, then "the Sin" that reigned "in the Death" has equally been hurled into the "lake of fire." In other words, the Sin has been removed from the from the cosmos along with the Death. This is not just true for believers in Christ, but true for all men, everywhere."
 (Observations)

(On the focal point of Preterism)
"Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years. This is a contradiction to Christian orthodoxy and its Creeds, Councils and all the Reformed, Baptist, and Methodist Standards (and we wonder why why preterists are called "heretics"!)." (Observations)

(On the Preterist Rapture)
"There is an increasingly surfacing division current within preterist studies between the “heaven now” denomination and the “heaven when you die” one.  Such is to be expected.  Ian D. Harding has recently penned Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70 (335 pp.), published by Ed Stevens’ publication arm, International Preterist Association, Inc.  The book is endorsed by Arthur Melanson and Walt Hibbard on the back cover.  It is important to the preterist movement because it is the first major work noting the differences within the preterist camps. 

[A]s Harding himself states, the book is directly written to those preterists who hold to what has been called the “heaven now” view (Harding, xiv).  This view, in his words, if true “takes away all meaning of language” (107).  It is to be admitted that the view expounded upon by Max King in Cross and Parousia of Christ and the view represented here are two completely different approaches within preterism.  They both operate from the same framework, of course, but the agreement ends there and this book makes it clearer than any other I have read.

The book does not pretend to be a “scholarly” piece.  The author never quotes authors like King and others that espouse the opposing view.  He simply interacts with the other view by stating something like, “[s]ome preterists say that the glorification promises were fulfilled at the Parousia in the living pre-Parousia Christians while they remained on earth” (107).  That would be the view of Max King, more or less, and those who align themselves with his approach more or less.  There is not much discussion about the meaning of “body” from its corporate aspect.  Indeed, much of what Harding does is simply assume that “glorification”, “made alive” and “catch away” are robbed of meaning if not taken literally.  Whether or not he proves this is another thing. " (An Analysis and Critique of Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70:  Blessings Expected at the Parousia)

(On The Second Coming)
"The formula for prophecy in the OT is that Event A is announced, then, when it occurs, the saying, "then you shall know that I am the Lord" applies.  One cannot argue in silence that many Jews holed up within the walls of Jerusalem did not repent at the last minute with the realization of their crime against Christ.  History, from three accounts, reports of prodigies and signs in the skies.  Eusebius repeats those reports as well.  The only thing the early church failed in doing was not tying the Second Coming doctrine to those events (which many mention - Barnabas, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, etc.).  This single event, according to Chrysostom and Athanasius, signaled the spiritual and covenantal transfer from old to new.  All that modern Preterists do is simply apply this transference to eschatological categories.  We just simply take a step further, logically, than did our blessed predecessors." (Why I am not a Preterist)

(On Origen)
"On the whole, he correctly sets forth their eschatological viewpoints. At times he may read too much into a portion of their works, but that is rare. Yet, after this useful scholarly work which he has done, at the end he sides with Origen…in his fanciful interpretation of I Corinthians 15:35,38” (p.6, Preterism). Actually, I do not side with Origen at all on those passages. I merely state that Origen did not have the flesh-body recomposed at the Second Coming but rather a “germ” of that body is used to build a “spiritual body”. I do not hold to that idea. I stated it only because I wished to show that a flesh-body resurrection was not the only view of the resurrection by the end of the second century. Be that as it may, Adams does quote me fairly." ("Millennial Post" - 12/03)

(On Max King)
"Ironically, it was in this academic cradle of Eschatology that the search for the Historical Jesus was born. There was a problem, and no doubt 70 C.E. figured into the solution somewhere, but 70 C.E. was hardly the 'end of the world' and we are hardly in the "new heavens and the new earth." No one could say that the "resurrection of the dead" took place then. Well, someone did say it. His name was Max King.

In surveying the history of Covenant Eschatology, I cannot find in print, prior to King, a view that constructed the model he put forth." (A Brief History of Covenant Eschatology)

Date: 23 Dec 2006
Time: 19:05:40

Comments:

this is so simple...
there.is.a.new.heaven.
Christ.and.the.risen.believers.are.there.
There.is.a.new.earth.
the.new.covenant.faithful.have.overcome.the.old.way.apostacies.
we.are.spiritual.citizens.of.Heaven.
living.in.the..earthly.kingdom.now.
The.kingdom.of.God.and.Heaven.are.two.different
things!!!